Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (4) TMI 1902 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus for refund of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) under TNVAT Act, 2006.
2. Jurisdiction of respondent to retain excess ITC claimed for refund.
3. Counter affidavit filed by respondent proposing recovery of ITC amount.
4. Necessity for petitioner to reply to show cause notice and contest the matter before the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for the refund of a sum related to assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 under the TNVAT Act, 2006. The counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of excess ITC as per the TNVAT Act and Rules, emphasizing that the respondent has no jurisdiction to retain the excess ITC if the claim is not rejected and if the eligibility for refund is established through the monthly returns filed.

2. The respondent, in response to the Writ Petition, contended that the claimed amount is not due for refund and proposed recovery of a different amount from the petitioner. The respondent issued a show cause notice for the proposed recovery, which the petitioner received. The court noted that since there was no rejection of the refund claim by the respondent, the petitioner must reply to the show cause notice and contest the matter before the respondent to address the issue effectively.

3. Given the factual background and the contentions of both parties, the court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days. The respondent was instructed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner's Authorized Representative and to pass a detailed order on merits and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the petitioner can raise all factual and legal contentions in the reply to be submitted, ensuring a fair process.

4. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on either party, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The detailed order and the need for the petitioner to actively engage in responding to the show cause notice were highlighted, emphasizing the importance of following the due process and presenting all relevant arguments before the respondent for a fair resolution of the refund issue.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates