9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the dealer had successfully discharged the burden of proving his entitlement for refund. The dealer cannot be burdened with production of any additional evidence. His initial burden of proving entitlement for refund should be presumed as discharged, on his production of materials which will clearly indicate payment of input tax. It is for the assessing authority to do any further cross-verification, for which the dealer could not be insisted for production of any additional proof or certificates. Thus the rejection of the claim for refund ordered through exhibit P4 is hereby quashed. - 17056 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2009 - ABDUL REHIM C.K. , J. C.K. ABDUL REHIM J. The petitioner is a dealer in timber and timber logs, hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received in response. Hence the petitioner seeks to quash exhibit P4 and seeks direction to the first respondent to grant refund of the excess input tax. The respondents in their counter-affidavit admit that the petitioner had furnished all bills and copies of demand drafts. According to the respondents, what was requested is to furnish tax remittance certificates from the Forest Department in order to confirm the payments. The contention is that it is not practically possible to have a cross verification with the various offices in the Forest Department. It is stated that the rejection of the claim for refund is valid because the petitioner had failed to produce certificates obtained from the Forest Department. Heard learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him. Section 11(6) provides that if the input tax of a dealer is more than the output tax for the returned period, then the difference shall be adjusted against amounts if any due from the dealer or shall be carried forward to the next returned period. The proviso to that section states that if the carried forward input tax cannot be fully adjusted during the last returned period of that year, the excess tax credit remaining unadjusted should be refunded to the dealer, as if it is a refund accrued under section 13 of the Act. Rule 47A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, deals with refund of input tax remaining unadjusted at the end of the year. The said rule provides that every dealer claiming refund in accordance with sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of these documents can definitely be considered as discharge of the burden cast upon the dealer to prove his claim for refund. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the dealer had successfully discharged the burden of proving his entitlement for refund. The next question is regarding the procedure to be adopted by the assessing authority when the dealer satisfies his claim with convincing evidence. As per the procedure contemplated in sub-rule (3)(i) the assessing authority has to make himself satisfied, after such enquiry as it considers necessary, as to whether the refund is admissible or not. It is clear that what is contemplated is only a cross-verification, if found necessary, for the satisfaction of the assessing authority, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
