9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 951 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRelevant date for calculation of interest - date from which the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum in terms of Section 33(2) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act 2005 (the said Act ) becomes payable on the amount refundable under the provisions of the said Act - HELD THAT - Section 33(2) is a special provision which deals with payment of interest on the amount refundable . Rule 30 of the said Rules deals with the aspect of refunds and the necessity of obtaining sanction where the amount of refund exceeds 50, 000/-. Even if as the revenue contends that there is some marginal overlap the clear and unambiguous provision in section 33(2) of the said Act cannot be made to yield to the provisions in Rule 30 of the said Rules when it comes to payment of interest upon the refund amount as sanctioned in terms of Rule 30 of the said Rules - In the present case fortunately there is no need to give any strained meaning to the provisions in Rule 30 so as to make it conform to the provisions in section 33(2) of the said Act. The provisions in Rule 30 of the said Rules as they stand do not detract anything from section 33(2) of the said Act. In fact both Rule 30 of the said Rules and section 33(2) of the said Act operate in their respective fields. It is reasonable to proceed on the basis that 90 days time limit provided in section 33(2) of the said Act is the time limit within which the appropriate assessing authorities must obtain sanction in terms of Rule 30 of the said Rules. However if for any reason such sanction is not obtained within the period of 90 days from the date of order of refund made under Section 29 of the said Act or within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of application for refund under section 10(3) of the said Act the appropriate assessing authority cannot avoid liability or payment of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on specious plea that such liability commences only from the date of expiry of 90 days from the date of sanction order under Rule 30 of the said Rules. In the present case the Petitioner seeks interest only on the amount which has already been sanctioned by the Authorities under Rule 30 of the said Rules. Therefore upon obtaining necessary sanction under Rule 30 of the said Rules beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order of refund or from the date of application for refund under Section 10(3) of the said Act the Authorities cannot avoid payment of interest upon expiry of this period on the specious plea that actual refund cannot be made without sanction under Rule 30 of the said Rules. The Respondents will have to pay simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum upon the amount of 52, 36, 030.69 towards Interstate/Local Sales for the period between 29.6.2011 i.e. expiry of 90 days from the date of assessment order dated 29.3.2011 till 20.2.2016 i.e. the date of actual refund. Similarly Respondents will have to pay simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of 28, 83, 213.31 towards refund of Input Tax Credit/Export Sales with effect from 24.4.2009 and 18.7.2008 on proportionate basis since this is the date which corresponds to the expiry of 90 days from the date of receipt of applications dated 24.1.2008 and 18.4.2008 in terms of Section 10(3) of the said Act. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Date from which simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum becomes payable on the refundable amount under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. Claim for an additional amount of ?8,51,594.88 towards VAT Input Tax Credit on export sales against restrictive tax invoice. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Date from which Simple Interest Becomes Payable: The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 33(2) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005, specifically regarding the date from which simple interest at 8% per annum becomes payable on the refundable amount. The petitioner argued that interest should be calculated from the date of the refund order or the date of receipt of the refund application, not from the date of the sanction order under Rule 30 of the Goa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The revenue contended that interest liability arises only after the sanction order is issued. The court noted that Section 33(2) does not mention the sanction order under Rule 30 as the starting point for the interest calculation. Instead, it specifies that interest is payable if the refund is not made within 90 days from the date of the refund order or the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 10(3). The court emphasized that the interpretation of taxing statutes must adhere to the strict letter of the law without adding or ignoring words. Therefore, the court held that the interest becomes payable from the date of the refund order or the application date, not from the sanction order date. The court directed the respondents to pay simple interest at 8% per annum on ?52,36,030.69 from 29th June 2011 (90 days after the refund order dated 29th March 2011) to 20th February 2016 (actual refund date). Similarly, interest on ?28,83,213.31 was to be paid from 24th April 2009 and 18th July 2008 (90 days after the respective application dates) to 20th February 2016. 2. Claim for Additional Amount of ?8,51,594.88: The petitioner also claimed an additional amount of ?8,51,594.88 towards VAT Input Tax Credit on export sales, which was allegedly incorrectly denied by the respondents. The revenue argued that this issue was pending adjudication before the appropriate authorities and should not be decided by the court at this stage. The court acknowledged that the issue was still under adjudication and directed the appropriate authorities to conclude the adjudication within four months. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved by the decision of the adjudicating authorities. Conclusion: The court ruled that the respondents must pay simple interest at 8% per annum on the refundable amounts from the date of the refund order or the application date, not from the sanction order date. The court also directed the appropriate authorities to conclude the adjudication on the additional claim of ?8,51,594.88 within four months, allowing the petitioner to seek further legal recourse if necessary. The petition was disposed of with specific directions and no order as to costs.
|
