Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 95 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of excess tax under protest - unjust enrichment - Held that - at the relevant time viz. for the period 1995 96 to 1999 2000 the petitioner had collected tax from its customers at the rate of 6% and paid the same. The excess amount was paid by the petitioner only in the year 2001 to avoid liability of interest and penalty. It cannot be gainsaid that in respect of sales made during the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000, the petitioner could not have recovered the additional tax from its customers and must have paid it out of its own funds. The question of unjust enrichment therefore, does not arise. It is not the case by the respondent department that the petitioner Company had paid the differential amount in the years concerned but the same is paid during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the same as the respondent authorities have already, while considering the challans for the assessment year 1999-2000 has granted refund to the petitioner Company. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner. 2. Requirement of documents for refund processing. 3. Unjust enrichment concern raised by the respondent authorities. Issue 1: Refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing Stainless Steel Wire Mesh, faced higher tax liability due to misclassification of its products for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. After a legal battle, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the authorities to refund the excess amount of &8377; 15,00,000 paid under protest. The petitioner complied with the court's directions by submitting necessary documents and affidavits to prove that the burden of the differential duty was not passed on to the purchasers, thus avoiding unjust enrichment. Issue 2: Requirement of documents for refund processing The respondent authorities requested various documents from the petitioner, such as sales registers, invoices, and vouchers, to process the refund. However, due to the age of the transactions (almost two decades old), the petitioner faced challenges in providing all the requested documents. Despite the petitioner's efforts to submit sample invoices and other relevant evidence, the authorities continued to demand additional details, causing delays in the refund process. Issue 3: Unjust enrichment concern raised by the respondent authorities The respondent authorities raised concerns about unjust enrichment and the necessity of specific documents for calculating the refund amount accurately. However, the petitioner argued that it had already paid the excess tax out of its own funds and could not recover it from customers, thereby negating any unjust enrichment. The court noted that for the assessment year 1999-2000, a partial refund had already been granted, indicating a basis for refunding the remaining amount for other years without unjust enrichment concerns. In the final judgment, the court directed the respondent authorities to consider the challans provided by the petitioner for the remaining years and grant a refund of &8377; 15,00,000 along with applicable interest within two months. The court emphasized the petitioner's compliance with the court's directions and the absence of evidence suggesting unjust enrichment, leading to the allowance of the petition and the ruling in favor of the petitioner.
|