9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d error would not be a ground for rejecting the same - limiting the amount of refund under sub section (3) of Section 20 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, allegedly “in interest of revenue” would be arbitrary and not reasonable. There are no reasons for this ground “in interest of revenue” - the respondent shall pass a fresh order for provisional refund - petition allowed by way of remand. - CWP No. 22428 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 23-1-2017 - MR. S.J. VAZIFDAR AND MR. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana S.J.VAZIFDAR, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Excise Taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- Section 20-Refund (3) A VAT dealer may seek refund by making an application containing the prescribed particulars accompanied with the prescribed documents in the prescribed manner to the assessing authority who shall, after examination of the application, allow provisionally refund to the dealer. This application was disposed of by the impugned order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Excise Taxation Officerrespondent No.2. The order accepts the petitioner s output liability to be ₹ 18,37,270/- under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act and ₹ 5,02,193/- under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 aggregating to ₹ 23,39,463/-. The order also finds the output tax available to the petitioner to be ₹ 1,08,96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority to assess prima-facie the correctness of a return and any modification thereof even for the purpose of deciding an application for provisional refund. 6. Respondent No.2 does not state that the application for provisional refund cannot be decided on the basis of the actual refund due and that it must necessarily be assessed only on the basis of the refund originally filed or even rectified once, although that may be found to be incorrect. The impugned order does not state that the rectification sought is not sustainable either on facts or due to any legal impediment. The computation of the refund as sought to be corrected is, although provisional, not only accepted by respondent No.2 but infact accepted in excess what was claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
