9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 654 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNon processing of refund application - The petitioner purchases goods in the State of Haryana and the said goods suffered tax at a higher rate than 2%. The goods were sold in interstate sales and the transactions were subjected to 2% tax. The petitioner sent a reminder dated 11.9.2015 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3 for provisional refund for the quarter ending 30.6.2013 to 31.3.2014, but all in vain. - Held that - without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the application dated 3.12.2015 (Annexure P-5) followed by a reminder dated 25.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Issues:
1. Petition for Mandamus for refund of tax amount with interest for assessment year 2013-14. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in Cotton Grinning and Trading, filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to refund an amount of Rs. 2,48,08,585 along with interest for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, applied for a refund through Form VAT-A4 for goods purchased in Haryana, which were subjected to a higher tax rate than 2% but sold in interstate sales at 2% tax. Despite reminders and court orders, the refund was not processed, leading to the present writ petition. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, directed respondent No.2 to decide on the refund application dated 3.12.2015 and the subsequent reminder dated 25.12.2015 within one month. The decision was to be made through a speaking order after providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. If the petitioner was found entitled to the refund, the amount was to be paid within the next month by the respondents in accordance with the law. This judgment aimed to ensure a timely and lawful resolution of the petitioner's refund claim, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in such matters.
|
