9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 466 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssuance of refund voucher with interest payable to the respondent herein under Section 24(4) of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT - On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that though the appellant had issued a refund voucher on 01.06.2005, subsequently, a revised order has been passed by the appellant on 16.12.2005, before the writ petition filed by the respondent came to be disposed of and as per the revised order, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 419.00 towards resale tax and a sum of Rs. 210.00 towards penalty. However, the said factum was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge at the time of disposing of the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Refund voucher issuance and interest under Section 24(4) of TNGST Act. 2. Validity of the order directing repayment of excess tax amount with interest. 3. Challenge to the order based on a revised order passed by the appellant. 4. Non-representation by the respondent despite notice. 5. Discrepancy in information presented to the court regarding the revised order. Analysis: 1. The writ appeal challenged an order directing the issuance of a refund voucher with interest under Section 24(4) of the TNGST Act. The respondent, an assessee, sought a refund of excess tax paid with interest. The appellant had issued a refund voucher on 01.06.2005, but the excess amount with interest was not refunded, leading to the writ petition. The court directed the appellant to repay the excess tax amount with interest within four weeks, which was now being challenged. 2. The appellant argued that a revised order was passed after issuing the refund voucher, requiring the respondent to pay additional amounts towards resale tax and penalty. This revised order was not brought to the attention of the court during the writ petition hearing. The appellant sought to set aside the order based on this discrepancy in information presented to the court, highlighting the revised obligations of the respondent. 3. Despite efforts to notify the respondent through substituted service and publication in the local newspaper, the respondent did not participate in the proceedings either personally or through legal representation. This non-representation by the respondent further complicated the matter, as the court proceeded with the case in the absence of the respondent's input or defense. 4. Upon reviewing the records, the court noted the discrepancy between the initial refund voucher issued and the subsequent revised order passed by the appellant. As per the revised order, the respondent was found liable for additional payments towards resale tax and penalty, which were not considered by the court when issuing the previous order. Consequently, the court concluded that the order passed by the Single Judge was based on incomplete information and, therefore, set aside the earlier decision. 5. In conclusion, the writ appeal was allowed, and the order directing the repayment of excess tax amount with interest was set aside. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, highlighting the importance of presenting complete and accurate information before the court to ensure fair and just decisions.
|
