2022 (5) TMI 705 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund claim - case of petitioner is that refund has not been effected except for one assessment year and that large amounts are still remaining due from the respondents - entitlement of interest on for delay in payment of interest under Section 44 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT - If any refund is due to the petitioner, the same is liable to be processed and refunded without further delay. To enable such consideration of the quantum of refund due to the petitioner including the interest due, the 1 st respondent is directed to take a decision upon Ext.P7, Ext.P7(a), Ext.P7(b) and Ext.P7(c), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the long delay, that has ensued from the filing of Ext.P7 till date, petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh representation also seeking refund of the amounts due, pointing out the details along with a copy of this writ petition - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Delay in refund of taxes under various tax acts

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under multiple tax acts, claimed refunds for several assessment years. Despite submitting representations and reminders since 2013, the refunds remained unpaid. The petitioner highlighted that specific instructions were issued in 2016 to look into the refund claim, but most of the amounts were still pending. The petitioner argued that statutory interest should be paid for the delay in refund under Section 44 of the KGST Act.

The learned Special Government Pleader stated that refunds for some years were adjusted against "future arrears" and assured that any due refunds would be considered and granted. The court acknowledged the delay and directed the 1st respondent to process and refund any amounts due to the petitioner promptly. The court specifically mentioned Ext.P7 documents to be decided upon within two months to determine the quantum of refund and interest due.

Due to the prolonged delay, the petitioner was allowed to file a fresh representation for refund, emphasizing that this action should not be seen as condoning any previous delays. If the refund is found to be eligible, statutory interest will accrue as per the law. The court emphasized the need for prompt action without further delay, ensuring that the refund process is expedited in compliance with the judgment.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, with clear directives for the timely processing and payment of refunds owed to the petitioner under the various tax acts, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory timelines and obligations.