2022 (3) TMI 269 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of the present writ petition - alternate remedy of appeal - case of the petitioner is that he never carried forward the said input tax credit to Tran-1 as there was no excess for the assessment year 2017-18 but was carried forward from the previous assessment year 2016-17 only - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that though Section 33 of the Act provides for appeal but the same cannot be availed by the petitioner as the Haryana Tax Tribunal is presently not functional. Thus, we are constrained to interfere in the present lis exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the Revisional Authority was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner relying upon Section 20(2)(a)(b) of the Act without taking into consideration Section 20(4) of the Act? - HELD THAT - The Revisional Authority has decided the issue in hand without resorting to Section 20(4) of the Act. No reason has been assigned by the Revisional Authority as to why the case of the petitioner will not fall within the ambit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The counsel for the respondents has failed to spell any reason as to why the case of the petitioner will not be covered under Section 20(4) of the Act. Once it is admitted that the Assessing Authority on assessment found that the petitioner has paid an amount in excess of tax, interest or penalty imposed on him, the case will be covered by Section 20(4) of the Act and not Section 20(2)(a)(b). The order passed by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Gurugram (East), is hereby set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of refund by Revisional Authority
- Interpretation of Section 20 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003
- Maintainability of writ petition due to absence of functional Haryana Tax Tribunal

Denial of Refund by Revisional Authority:
The petitioner challenged the order disallowing a refund by the Revisional Authority, which was initially allowed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner contended that the refund amount was carried forward from previous assessment years and not from the year in question. The Revisional Authority rejected the claim based on specific sections of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, the High Court found that the Revisional Authority did not consider Section 20(4) of the Act, which allows for refund of excess amounts paid. The Court noted that if the Assessing Authority found that the petitioner overpaid, the case should fall under Section 20(4) and not Section 20(2)(a)(b).

Interpretation of Section 20 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003:
The Court delved into the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, which governs the claim of refund. Section 20(4) specifically allows for the refund of excess amounts paid by a dealer. The Court emphasized that the Revisional Authority did not consider this provision while rejecting the petitioner's claim. By analyzing the statutory provisions, the Court concluded that the petitioner's case should have been covered under Section 20(4) for the refund, as the Assessing Authority had determined that the petitioner paid an amount in excess of tax, interest, or penalty.

Maintainability of Writ Petition due to Absence of Functional Haryana Tax Tribunal:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner could appeal under Section 33 of the Act. However, the Court noted that the Haryana Tax Tribunal was not functional, rendering the appeal remedy unavailable to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address the issue. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Revisional Authority and directing the respondents to issue the refund amount along with interest within a specified timeframe.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of denial of refund, statutory interpretation of Section 20, and the maintainability of the writ petition due to the non-functionality of the Tax Tribunal. The Court's decision to set aside the Revisional Authority's order and grant the refund showcases the importance of proper application and consideration of statutory provisions in tax refund cases.