2018 (5) TMI 82 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of input tax credit - grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the first respondent in passing orders on the same - Held that - materials on record indicate that the assessment of the petitioner has been revised on the basis of the audit objection and the petitioner has satisfied the demand for additional tax made pursuant to the revision. Want of confirmation from the Accountant General as to the steps taken on the basis of the audit objection cannot be a reason for delaying consideration of application for input tax refund. If an assessee is entitled to input tax refund in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the assessing authority is bound to allow such requests. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for refund of input tax paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act
- Inaction by the first respondent in passing orders on the application

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application for a refund of the input tax paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The grievance raised in the writ petition pertains to the delay in action by the first respondent in processing the application. The petitioner sought appropriate directions to compel the first respondent to act on the refund application.

Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader, it was revealed through a communication (Ext.P15) from the first respondent that the application was not being considered due to the lack of confirmation from the Accountant General regarding the steps taken for revising the petitioner's assessment based on an audit objection.

Although the petitioner had already revised the assessment and met the demand for additional tax resulting from the revision, the delay caused by the absence of confirmation from the Accountant General was deemed unjustifiable. The court emphasized that the entitlement to an input tax refund, as per the Act and Rules, should not be hindered by procedural delays. The assessing authority was directed to consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P14) within six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, ensuring compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of inaction by the first respondent in processing the petitioner's application for a refund of input tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of such requests and directed the assessing authority to act in accordance with the law, disregarding delays caused by procedural formalities unrelated to the petitioner's entitlement to the refund.