2015 (9) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012, is arbitrary and illegal, as he had rejected the claim for refund made by the petitioner, by filing form 'W', manually. In fact, there is no Rule or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rule or  Regulation. 4. As it is clear that the Circular, dated 20.10.2011, issued by the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, cannot abridge or overrule the provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012. Hence, it is set aside. The first resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X