9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 417 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxEnactment of Amnesty Scheme - Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalties for Late Fee Act, 2019 - input tax credit - HELD THAT - The Petitioner's opting for Amnesty Scheme would not have any impact on the disbursement to be made by the State in terms of the assurance given to this court today that they are bound by the assurances given to this court in Mahalakshmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries Ltd. 2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The apprehension of Mr.Rungta that the assurance given by the State to this court in Mahalakshmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries Ltd. 2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT would be rendered ineffective in case the Petitioner opts for the Amnesty Scheme is not justified. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002; Availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal; Impact of Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalties for Late Fee Act, 2019 (Amnesty Scheme) on refund of input tax credit. Analysis: The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Initially, the court expressed reluctance to entertain the petition due to the availability of an appeal as an alternative remedy under the Act. However, the petitioner argued that the challenge to the order was based on the enactment of the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalties for Late Fee Act, 2019 (Amnesty Scheme), with a deadline for filing under the scheme. The petitioner raised concerns that opting for the Amnesty Scheme might impact the refund of input tax credit disallowed by the impugned order, contrary to assurances given by the State in a previous case regarding recovery from defaulting dealers and subsequent refunds to the assessee. The State, represented by learned counsel, acknowledged being bound by the assurances given in the previous case and assured that any amounts recovered from defaulting dealers would be disbursed to the petitioner proportionate to the extent of setoff disallowed, considering the tax waived under the Amnesty Scheme. Consequently, the court held that opting for the Amnesty Scheme would not affect the disbursement to the petitioner as per the assurances given in the previous case. The court emphasized that the amounts recovered would not be considered a refund under the Amnesty Scheme but would be disbursed in accordance with the previous court decision, limited to the proportionate extent of input credit disallowed and factoring in the tax benefit obtained under the Amnesty Scheme. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition based on the understanding that the State's assurances regarding recovery from defaulting dealers and subsequent disbursement to the petitioner would be upheld even if the petitioner opted for the Amnesty Scheme. The court clarified that the disbursement of amounts collected from defaulting sellers would be limited to the proportionate extent of input credit disallowed and after considering the tax benefit obtained by the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme.
|
