2022 (7) TMI 5 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of amount deposited - refund sought on the ground that the deposit done during the course of the search was not justified as it was contrary to the provision of the Acts - HELD THAT - Before passing any order, petitioner shall be given a personal hearing and notice of personal hearing shall be given at least seven days in advance - If the Adjudicating Authority is going to rely on any judgment or authority or judicial pronouncement of any forum, a list thereof shall be provided to petitioner along with notice of personal hearing so that petitioner can deal with or distinguish the same. If after the personal hearing, petitioner wishes to file written submissions, the same shall be filed within three working days thereafter. Mr. Shah states that petitioner will co-operate with respondents and attend the hearing and will not seek any adjournment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of CST, interest, and penal interest for F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17.
2. Compliance with court direction from the previous order.
3. Refund of amounts deposited under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
4. Adjudicating Authority's obligation to grant refunds.
5. Quashing and setting aside of orders dated 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020.
6. Remand for de novo consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
7. Provision of personal hearing and notice.
8. Submission of written arguments.
9. Cooperation during the hearing.
10. Separate order for F.Y. 2016-17 and its quashing.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of CST, interest, and penal interest amounting to Rs.14.41 crore for F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17. The court noted this as the second round of litigation and emphasized the need for strict compliance with the previous court order from 14.09.2018.
2. The previous petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought a refund of amounts deposited under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant refunds if found warranted after assessment, which was accepted by the Revenue's counsel.
3. The Adjudicating Authority failed to address the issue of refund in its orders from 31.01.2019 and 18.03.2020, prompting the petitioner to approach the court again. The court quashed these orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, instructing a personal hearing for the petitioner.
4. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide a list of judgments or authorities it relies on, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, and allow written submissions within three days after the hearing.
5. The petitioner agreed to cooperate and attend the hearing without seeking adjournments. The petition was withdrawn, clarifying that the court had not made any comments on the merits of the case.
6. A separate order for F.Y. 2016-17 with similar facts was also quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration, following the same procedure as directed for previous years. The court appreciated the cooperation of the Revenue's counsel in this regard.