2022 (9) TMI 160 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Input Tax Credit - reopening of assessment - time limitation - proper reasons for delay, given or not - HELD THAT - It is seen that admittedly there have been deemed assessment thereafter the assessment have been reopened, considered and I.T.C credits have been verified refund order, thereafter, again it was revisited and the refund had been considerably reduced and orders have been passed in appeal. This case, though the assessment is pending from the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, all have been considered simultaneously and the issues are common. The period of limitation contended by the petitioner may not arise in this case. In view of the pendency of the assessment, the authorities ought to have given adequate opportunities to the petitioner in this case which is not so. Further, the appeal is a statutory appeal and no person can be denied of statutory appeal. Further, there is a provision for condonation of delay. In view of the same, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits. The delay alone is condoned. The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Issues:
1. Refund dispute related to deemed assessment orders for the assessment year 2008-2009.
2. Refund dispute for the assessment year 2013-2014 based on revised assessment orders.
3. Refund dispute for the assessment year 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 due to change in excess amount calculation.
4. Dispute regarding rejection of Input Tax Credit and change in refund amounts.
5. Challenge on the grounds of reopening assessments after completion and lack of natural justice principles.
6. Respondent's argument on the timeliness of filing appeals and dismissal of writ petitions.
7. Court's analysis of the case, consideration of statutory appeal rights, and direction for appeal filing and review.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.17767 of 2022 contended a refund dispute regarding deemed assessment orders for the assessment year 2008-2009. The second respondent revised the refund amount multiple times, leading to discrepancies and changes in the excess payment. The petitioner challenged the latest order dated 15.02.2021, reducing the refund amount, citing lack of reasons for rejection of Input Tax Credit and violation of natural justice principles.

2. In W.P.(MD).No. 17768 of 2022, the petitioner raised a similar refund dispute for the assessment year 2013-2014. The second respondent's order dated 24.02.2021 demanded a sum, contrary to the first respondent's order dated 28.05.2019. The petitioner argued against the mere change of opinion leading to a revised assessment and adjustment of amounts from previous years.

3. W.P.(MD).No.17769 of 2022 involved a refund dispute for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2013-2014. The second respondent's changing opinions resulted in revised refund orders, with discrepancies in excess amounts calculated. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds of reopening completed assessments and lack of adherence to natural justice principles.

4. The Special Government Pleader for the respondents defended the assessment process, emphasizing the consideration of records, errors correction, and revision of excess credits. The respondent argued against the delay in filing appeals and supported the reasoned nature of the impugned orders.

5. The Court considered the submissions and records, noting the deemed assessments, reopening of assessments, verification of Input Tax Credits, and revision of refund orders. The Court highlighted the common issues across the assessment years and addressed the petitioner's contention on the period of limitation.

6. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeals on merits, condoning the delay in filing. Emphasizing the statutory appeal rights and provision for condonation of delay, the Court instructed the petitioner to file the appeal within three weeks and directed the first respondent to review the appeal within two months from submission.

7. With the above directions, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, without costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal and review of the assessment disputes.

← Previous Next →