9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 5 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImpleadment of additional respondent - refund claim - it is submitted that officer now designated to consider the refund application is the Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga, who is not a party here - HELD THAT - The Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga is impleaded as the additional respondent herein suo motu - the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes is directed to return the application filed, within a period of one week from today. The application shall be produced before the additional respondent i.e. Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga. The application shall be considered, as having been filed in the year 2015 itself, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues Involved: Refund application for the year 2005-06, Jurisdiction of the officer to consider the application under the Goods and Services Tax regime.
Refund Application: The petitioner filed a refund application for the year 2005-06 before the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Begusarai Circle, Begusarai in 2015. However, the application was kept pending, and an objection was raised regarding the officer's jurisdiction to consider the application. The officer designated to consider the refund application is now the Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga, due to the upgradation of officers under the Goods and Services Tax regime. Court's Decision: The Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga was impleaded as an additional respondent. The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes was directed to return the application to be produced before the Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Administration), Darbhanga. The application is to be considered, after hearing the petitioner, within one month from the date of production of the judgment's certified copy. The court clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the petitioner's claim, and the writ petition was disposed of.
|
