2022 (9) TMI 426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Refund claim alongwith the interest - suppression of facts or not - time limitation - section 16 (1) (a) of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT - No doubt the petitioner has approached the appellate authorities. However, admittedly, the refund in question arises in respect of those issues that had not travelled in appeal and had attained finality. It was only as regards the remainder of the issues as well as penalty that the petitioner has approached the statutory authorities and some of those appeals are still stated to be pending. The claim of interest is maintainable even in the absence of a statutory Form. It was never the case of the Department at any stage, that the claim ought to have been made in statutory Form. The petitioner s request dated 07.03.2008 seeks only refund under threat of legal action. Interest upon the refund claimed shall be quantified and paid over within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Identity of the petitioner.
2. Entitlement to refund.
3. Entitlement to interest on the refund.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for the claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Identity of the Petitioner:
The court established that there is a complete identity between Zeneco Agro Chemicals Limited and Syngenta Crop Protection Private Limited, rejecting the respondent's claim of suppression regarding the change of name. The assessment orders and other documents consistently referred to the petitioner under both names, confirming their identity.

2. Entitlement to Refund:
The petitioner sought refunds for the periods 1996-97 to 2000-2001, which were quantified but not issued despite several requests. The initial Writ Petitions led to a direction for the respondent to consider the legal notice for refund. The respondent's rejection of the refund request was based on pending assessments and appeals. However, subsequent Writ Petitions resulted in a direction to issue refund vouchers for the admitted amount of Rs. 6,50,58,905/-. The Commercial Taxes Department's appeal against this direction was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, establishing the petitioner's entitlement to the refund.

3. Entitlement to Interest on the Refund:
The petitioner sought interest on the delayed refund, which was initially not addressed in the orders. The Division Bench later directed the payment of statutory interest on the refund amount. Despite this, the respondent rejected the interest claim, citing procedural lapses and pending appeals. The court found these reasons unmeritorious, noting that the refund issues not under appeal had attained finality and that the claim for interest was justified even without a statutory form.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for the Claim:
The court addressed the respondent's objections regarding procedural non-compliance, such as failure to inform about the change of address and not filing the interest claim in the statutory form. The court found these objections to be misconceived and irrelevant to the petitioner's entitlement to interest. It emphasized that the claim for interest was valid and should be honored, irrespective of the procedural lapses cited by the respondent.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refund amount and directed the respondent to quantify and pay the interest within four weeks. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondent's reasons for rejecting the interest claim were deemed unjustified.

← Previous Next →