2024 (6) TMI 1170 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of amount paid under coercion - no order for demand is passed - HELD THAT - On perusal of the facts, it is apparent that the respondents have not passed any order disposing of the refund applications dated 04.06.2021 and 24.09.2021. Considering the affidavit in reply, it appears that there are disputed questions of facts with regard to service of notice and passing of the assessment order for the period for which refund is claimed by the petitioners. The affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioners also raises such disputes with regard to the contents of the affidavit in reply. The petition is not entertained at this stage. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order disposing of the aforesaid refund applications filed by the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of amount collected without formal demand, non-grant of refund, coercion to pay, submission of refund claim, inaction by respondents, disputed questions of facts regarding assessment orders.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking a writ of Mandamus for the non-grant of a refund amounting to Rs. 13,56,865/- along with interest. The petitioners claimed that they were coerced to pay this amount between February 2016 and May 2016. Despite submitting refund claims and follow-up letters, the respondents did not respond or provide copies of any assessment orders confirming the demands. The court noted that no order disposing of the refund applications was passed by the respondents. Disputed questions of facts arose regarding the service of notice and passing of assessment orders for the relevant period. The court refrained from delving into the details to avoid prejudicing either party. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the refund applications within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely and fair consideration of refund applications by the authorities. It underscores the need for proper documentation and communication between parties in such matters to avoid disputes and ensure transparency. The court's decision to refrain from detailed examination of disputed facts showcases a balanced approach to resolving issues without prejudicing any party. By directing the respondents to act within a specified timeframe, the court ensures accountability and timely resolution of the petitioners' grievances. Overall, the judgment emphasizes adherence to procedural fairness and efficient redressal of claims in matters involving refunds and coercive actions.