9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 438 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDirection to grant refund as per the refund order already passed and no action taken - certain queries raised by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) - statutory powers of Deputy Commissioner (CT) - are the queries raised by Deputy Commissioner (CT) legal and acceptable? - Held that - the power of suo motu revision has been conferred on the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The procedure adopted by the respondent as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is wholly illegal - respondent directed to effect refund of the tax, as per the refund order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to notice issued by the respondent based on queries raised by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act, 2006). Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, challenged a notice issued by the respondent based on queries from the Deputy Commissioner (CT). The respondent had earlier completed assessment for the petitioner for the year 2013-14, determining an excess tax collected of ?39,33,672 refundable to the petitioner. Despite a previous order directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for refund, the respondent issued a fresh notice instead of complying. The petitioner objected to the lack of statutory powers in the Deputy Commissioner's proceedings and provided a detailed reply on entitlement to refund. However, the respondent failed to act on the refund and instead referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner, Public Relations, without statutory backing. The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent argued that such a procedure is common practice for effecting refunds, even if not backed by statutory authority. The court examined the potential impact of an order by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes based on the petitioner's request. It was noted that if the Commissioner were to review and alter the earlier assessment order, it would go beyond the statutory power of suo motu revision granted to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The court deemed the procedures followed by the respondent and the Deputy Commissioner as illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned notice and directing the respondent to refund the tax as per the original refund order within four weeks from the date of the court's order. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
