9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 329 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of ITC - Export Sales - case of Revenue is that the petitioner should have applied for refund under Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act, within 180 days by filing Form W under Rule 11(2), since the ITC represents ITC towards exports - HELD THAT - In the present case, a revision is provided under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act - Admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the revisional remedy contemplated under the Act. The Principles of Law expects that an aggrieved person has to exhaust the statutory remedies available and the writ petition is to be filed only after exhausting the remedies contemplated. Moreover, there are certain disputed facts and circumstances raised. The High Court cannot conduct the roving enquiry with reference to the disputed facts and circumstances, which is to be done based on the documents and evidences. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 54 of the Act, for the purpose of redressing the grievances. In the event of filing any such revision petition, the Appellate Authority has to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim under TNVAT Act, 2006; Applicability of Section 18(3) for refund application; Exhaustion of revisional remedy under Section 54 of TNVAT Act before filing writ petition. The judgment pertains to a challenge against the rejection of a refund claim under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner claimed a clerical error in the deduction of ?60 lakhs from their available Input Tax Credit (ITC) for export sales in January 2015. The respondent contended that the petitioner should have applied for refund under Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act within 180 days by filing Form W under Rule 11(2). The court noted that disputed facts need to be adjudicated based on evidence. The court highlighted the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court. It was observed that the petitioner had not utilized the revisional remedy available under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act before filing the writ petition. The court emphasized that aggrieved parties must exhaust all available remedies before resorting to writ petitions, especially when disputed facts are involved. The respondent argued that the application for refund should have been filed within 180 days, and the petitioner had exceeded the limitation period. The petitioner disputed this claim, stating they had valid reasons for the delay. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 54 of the Act to address the grievances, emphasizing that the High Court cannot delve into disputed facts and circumstances without proper evidence. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek redressal through the Revisional Authority under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider any revision petition on its merits and in accordance with the law, providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
