9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntaining specific details and which did not have any entry for refund for past assessment years, he was compelled to show the sum of ₹ 35,13,883/- against the entry of net tax credit. This method adopted by the Assessing Officer would not change the true character of the said sum payable to the petitioner. It was and remained a refund due and payable. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax committed a serious error in treating such refund as input tax credit claimed by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has opted for composition of tax and, in such situation, would not be entitled to claim any input tax credit. The Deputy Commissioner cannot disturb the refund payable to the petitioner on mere suspicion. - The au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l that refund as payable to the petitioner shall be released latest by 10.03.2013. 2. In terms of such statement, the Assessing Officer granted refund to the petitioner as part of the order of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. Case of the petitioner is that, in such computer generated assessment order in pre-set format, there was no column for refund for the earlier years. The Assessing Officer, therefore, in his order dated 06.03.2013 showed the refund of ₹ 35,13,883/- against the clause pertaining to net tax credit. He also calculated a sum of ₹ 8,11,642/- as interest payable on such refund. The net refund payable thus became to ₹ 42,65,438/-. However, the petitioner was not entirely satisfied. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y entry of refund for the past assessment years, the Assessing Officer, therefore, for convenience had shown such refund against the entry of input tax credit. Counsel relied on the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 28.06.2016 in which these aspects have been further clarified. 4. On the other hand, learned AGP relied on further affidavit in reply dated 01.07.2016 filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, in which, he has raised the issues of refund as well as of the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, few facts immediately become clear. First and foremost, the petitioner had been pressing hard for rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Return Form which is to be filed online did not contain any such column for the refund of tax and therefore, left with no other alternative, this amount was indicated in the column of the tax credit carried forward to the next period. For the year 2007-08, the amount of refund on account of tax being paid more than tax payable came to ₹ 27.50.277/-. Thus, the principle amount of refund of ₹ 35,13,883/- alongwith the interest of ₹ 8,11,642/- making the total amount of ₹ 43,25,525/- came to be payable to the Petitioner No. 1. 2. I state and submit that since this amount was not released and the assessment had become time barred, the Petitioners were compelled to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking refund. Purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isappear. Such notice is, therefore, required to be quashed. 7. In the further affidavit in reply filed today, respondent No. 1, however, has raised few further issues. The first issue that he seeks to raise is that in the input tax credit derived from the returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 according to him is ambiguity and requires scrutiny. Second issue he seeks to raise in following manner: 2. It is humbly submitted that Audit query was raised and on that basis revision notice was issued. It is humbly submitted that on scrutiny it was found that dealer obtained for lumpsum tax scheme for 2008-09. during the scrutiny of VAT report revealed that goods worth of ₹ 5,77,10,250/- was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
