2017 (11) TMI 1565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund claim - Form P - Held that - It is high time that the third respondent - the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes fixes personal responsibility on the officers, who delay such refund claims. Even when the Assessing Officers are summoned to court for non compliance of directions issued to effect admitted refund of excess tax, the Officers invariably state that their superior officers are yet to approve it. Hence, it is high time for the third respondent to evolve a procedure, by which, individual officers will be personally held liable for delaying such admitted refund claims - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to refund excess tax paid by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. Non-compliance of court orders directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a time frame.
3. Lack of response from the Assessing Officer despite multiple representations by the petitioner.
4. Delay in refund claims and the need for personal responsibility to be fixed on officers responsible for such delays.
5. Contempt proceedings and the discretion of the Court in initiating such actions.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the petitioner seeking a refund of excess tax paid under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner had approached the Court for the second time due to the respondents' failure to honor their commitment to refund the amounts acknowledged in assessment orders for the years 2006-07 and 2008-09. The Court noted that the petitioner was entitled to refunds of specific amounts for both years, as indicated in Form P notices. Despite court orders directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a timeframe, no action had been taken, leading to the possibility of contempt proceedings.

The petitioner had submitted representations on multiple occasions, but no response was received from the Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized that as long as the Form P notices were valid, the petitioner was entitled to a cash refund, especially with the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax Act eliminating the need for adjustment of amounts. The judgment highlighted the need for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to hold individual officers personally responsible for delaying refund claims to ensure accountability and timely processing of refunds.

Although the Court acknowledged the potential for contempt proceedings in this case, it decided against initiating such actions to prevent potential harassment of the dealer. Instead, the Court directed the first respondent to refund the specified amounts to the petitioner by a set deadline, warning of initiating contempt proceedings if the refunds were not processed timely. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petitions without imposing any costs on the parties involved.