2019 (9) TMI 1151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund claim - extended period of limitation - respondents are directed to release the refund amount within the next four weeks - petitioner states that, in the present case, there is no justification for extension of limitation for passing the order - HELD THAT - We are not concerned with that aspect of the matter and, in case, an order adverse to the petitioner s interest is passed, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all its pleas before the appropriate forum. However, the respondents should pass the fresh order, if any, pertaining to the fourth quarter of 2013-14 in accordance with law within eight weeks from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount of ₹ 82,227/- relating to the fourth quarter of 2013- 14 as well. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Refund sought by the petitioner along with interest.
2. Validity of orders passed by the Assessing Officer/Value Added Tax Officer.
3. Refund amount for the period of the fourth quarter of 2012-13.
4. Possibility of re-assessment for the fourth quarter of 2012-13.
5. Refund amount for the fourth quarter of 2013-14.
6. Extension of limitation for passing assessment order for the fourth quarter of 2013-14.
7. Direction to the respondents to release the refund amount.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner initially sought a direction for the refund of a specific amount along with interest.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the authority of the Assessing Officer/Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) to pass certain orders, claiming there was no delegation of power for such actions.

3. The Court quashed the two orders dated 26.04.2018 and one order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the VATO (WARD-50). Consequently, the respondents were directed to refund the petitioner an amount of ?3,81,187 for the period of the fourth quarter of 2012-13.

4. The Court noted that no re-assessment was possible for the fourth quarter of 2012-13 as the limitation had expired. Therefore, the respondents were bound to refund the mentioned amount to the petitioner.

5. Regarding the fourth quarter of 2013-14, the Court acknowledged the possibility of the competent authority passing an assessment order within the extended period of limitation.

6. The petitioner contended that there was no justification for extending the limitation for passing the order for the fourth quarter of 2013-14. The Court, however, stated that the petitioner could raise any concerns before the appropriate forum if an adverse order was passed.

7. The respondents were directed to pass any fresh order relating to the fourth quarter of 2013-14 within eight weeks. Failure to do so would entitle the petitioner to a refund of ?82,227 for that period as well.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions for the refund amounts and the actions to be taken by the respondents within specified timeframes.

← Previous Next →