9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1053 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of excess payment of tax - Section 42(5) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - further evidence sought for refund - Held that - it is evident from the orders of assessment and notice enclosed in Form P, that the Assessing Officer has already concluded that the petitioner has made the excess payment. It is seen that the said conclusion has become final and binding on the parties. Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to produce any further evidence for seeking refund of the amount so paid by the petitioner in excess - the respondent is directed to refund the excess payment made by the petitioner - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Seeking direction for refund of excess tax paid for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. Analysis: The petitioner, a Civil Contractor and Assessee, had revision of assessment orders passed for the mentioned assessment years, revealing excess payments made. The Assessing Officer found amounts of &8377; 58,337/-, &8377; 93,088/-, &8377; 67,107/-, &8377; 72,411/-, and &8377; 43,856/- respectively for each year. Despite the petitioner's request for refund and the notice in Form P enclosed with assessment orders, the excess amounts were not refunded. The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking the refund, arguing that the Assessing Officer's duty is to refund excess payments under Section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner's counsel contended that once excess payments were identified in the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer should refund them without requiring additional evidence. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel stated that the agreement copies of works contract were requested to address potential audit objections. The respondent argued that the petitioner could provide the agreements to facilitate the refund process. The Court acknowledged that final assessment orders were passed for the mentioned years, determining excess tax payments by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer's conclusion of excess payment, as evidenced by the notice in Form P, was deemed final and binding. The Court held that the Assessing Officer is obligated to refund excess payments under Section 42(5) of the Act, without demanding further evidence from the petitioner. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondent to refund the excess amounts within four weeks from the date of the order, without imposing any costs.
|
