2022 (5) TMI 4 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of application for refund of tax allegedly due - appealable order under Section 55 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order Ext.P12 shows that the Assessing Officer has considered the contention of the petitioner and entered into a finding after perusing the records produced. It is held in the impugned order that the delivery book produced by the petitioner and alleged to have been maintained by the accountant contains only a vague marking with ink as evidence of acknowledgment from the office of the State Tax Officer. It was after an appreciation of the facts and records that it was concluded that the delivery book did not contain any identifiable name, authenticating signature or even the designation of the official apart from absence of office seal. It is clear from a reading of the impugned order that the findings have been entered into by the 1st respondent after appreciating the facts and circumstances arising in the case. Though an alternative remedy is not a complete bar for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, burden is upon the assessee to prove that circumstances exists warranting an interference by this Court. No such circumstances have been brought to my notice to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the contentions raised by the petitioner can effectively be considered by the Appellate Authority, it is only appropriate that petitioner pursues its statutory remedies rather than invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner challenges the order of the Assessing Officer rejecting its application for a tax refund for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The main issue revolves around the rejection of the refund claim and the legal recourse available to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in trading electronic goods, filed returns for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Despite filing for a refund of Rs. 63,321/- and Rs. 1,58,201/- for the respective years, the refund was not granted, leading to the petitioner approaching the Assessing Authority for adjustment against subsequent tax dues. The Assessing Officer rejected the refund claim citing lack of evidence of filing the refund application. The petitioner challenged this rejection through a writ petition.

The court observed that the Assessing Officer's decision was based on an evaluation of the records presented. The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the petitioner, specifically regarding the lack of identifiable information in the delivery book submitted as proof of acknowledgment. The court emphasized that disputed facts needed to be reevaluated by the Appellate Authority rather than the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While acknowledging the petitioner's right to seek judicial intervention under Article 226, the court emphasized the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate circumstances justifying High Court interference. Since the issues raised could be effectively addressed by the Appellate Authority, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to exclude the period spent on the writ petition from the calculation of time limits.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The court's decision prioritized the proper forum for resolving disputed facts and emphasized the need for petitioners to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant High Court intervention.