9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural gases totalling to Rs. 82.93 Crores during the period January 2007 to March 2007. Out of the total local sale of Rs. 82.93 Crores, sale to TNEB was Rs. 23.29 Crores and the appellant charged 4% VAT on this sale (as per GO of TN Govt). As regards the balance sale of Rs. 59.64 Crores (other than TNEB), the appellant charged VAT at 12.5% and remitted the amount of VAT so collected (12.5%) to the Government. 2.4 It is submitted that ONGC had committed an error in charging VAT at 12.5% (instead of 4%) on sale to the Appellant and thus, the Appellant also committed an error in charging VAT at 12.5% on their local sale. Similarly, the appellant wrongly reversed Input Tax Credit in each of their Inter-State sale transactions effected during the period January March 2007. The total Inter- State sale value for the period January March 2007 works out to Rs. 14.98 Crores and the appellant wrongly reversed ITC at 12.5% (paid Tax) to the tune of Rs. 1,52,01,304/-. 2.5 The appellant showed the above reversal of Input Tax Credit of 12.5% in each of the Inter-State Sale Invoices, collected the same from their buyers as part of sale price and remitted the same to the Government. Through a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to order of the Tribunal dated 21.04.2011, wherein the Tribunal gave a specific direction to the Respondent to assess Natural Gases at 4% and refund the excess tax collected. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the Appellant also made a representation to the Respondent in Letter dated 03.11.2014 to consider the revised returns filed on 15.11.2011 and permit the Appellant to carry forward the ITC of Rs. 1,52,01,304/- to the next year. 2.11 The Respondent passed an order dated 26.06.2015 rejecting the Appellant's request for refund/carry forward of ITC of Rs. 1,52,01,304/- on the ground that the revised returns were filed on 15.11.2011 after a lapse of five years for the year 2006-07 and there is no provision in the Act and Rules to accept the revised returns filed after a period of nearly five years; and revised returns can be filed only within six months from the due date of a return as provided under Rule 7(9) of TNVAT Rules 2007 and Rule 5(1) of CST (Tamil Nadu) Rules 1957. 2.12 In the aforesaid order, the respondent had relied on Rule 7(9) of TNVAT Rules, 2007, inserted with effect from 6th May, 2010, which permits submission of revised returns within a peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sconceived. (c) Third reason is that during the period 2006-2007, there is no provision restricting the submission of revised returns; Rule 7(9) of TNVAT Rules, 2007 inserted from 6th May 2010, would apply prospectively and therefore, it would not apply to the revised returns filed by the appellant for the assessment year 2006-2007. The learned counsel would rely on the decision of this Court reported in [2010] 035 VST 0277 (Mad) {Sri Mounika Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai} , wherein this Court held that revised returns could be filed by the assessee under the provision of TNVAT Act, 2006. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that as per Section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, an assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the submission made before the Writ Court that the reversal of input tax credit given effect to, is not actually the reversal of input tax credit, but the same is the VAT amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant had made Inter-State sale of Natural Gases for a value of Rs. 14.98 Crores and charged C.S.T at 4% against C Form. The CST collected was also remitted to the Department. However, the Appellant committed an error by reversing / paying the entire amount of VAT charged by ONGC under the bonafide impression that they cannot avail any Input Tax Credit at all, if they made Inter-State sale. The appellant was under the wrong notion that for inter state sale, they have to reverse the entire input tax credit of 12.5% charged by the seller ONGC. This error occurred due to introduction of VAT system of taxation from 01.01.2007. The total Inter-State sale value for the period January-March 2007 worked out to Rs. 14.98 Crores and the appellant reversed ITC at 12.5% tax and wrongly paid Rs. 1,52,01,304/-. 10. The appellant showed the above reversal of Input Tax Credit of 12.5% in each of the interstate sale invoices, collected the same from their buyers as part of sale price and remitted the same to the Government. Only after they got a clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tami Nadu about the rate of tax applicable to Natural Gases that the natural gases are ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of 2014 and notice was ordered by this Court and the same is pending till date. 13. The respondent, by their assessment proceedings for 2006-2007 under CST Act' 1956, has issued notice on 23.10.2014. The appellant has filed a representation to the respondent on 03.11.2014 to consider the revised returns filed on 15.11.2011 and to permit the appellant to carry forward the ITC of Rs. 1,52,01,304/- to the next year. The respondent passed an order dated 26.06.2015 rejecting the appellant's request for refund/carry forward of ITC of Rs. 1,52,01,304/- on the ground that the revised returns were filed on 15.11.2011 after a lapse of 5 years for the year 2006-2007 and there is no provision in the Act and Rules to accept revised returns filed after a period of nearly five years under Rule 7(9) of TNVAT Rules 2007 and Rule 5(1) of CST (Tamil Nadu) Rules 1957 and the revised returns are supposed to be filed within a period of six months from the due date of return. But the appellant's submission is that during the period 2006-2007, there is no provision restricting the submission of revised returns; the aforesaid Rule inserted from 6th May 2010, would apply prospectively and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as amended with effect from April 1, 2012 is reproduced below:- "41. Forfeiture of tax collected. - If any person or registered dealer collects any amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax and his turnover for the year falls short of the taxable limit specified under this Act, the sum so collected shall be remitted to the Government and forfeited, after deducting the eligible input tax credit claim, if any, on the corresponding purchases." 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, an assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. Section 84 of the TNVAT Act deals with the Power of the Authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, which reads as under:- (1) An assessing authority or an appellant or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any apparent on the face of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in a decision reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110 (United Bank of India ..vs.. Satyawati Tondon and others), by placing reliance on various decisions, held that the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "41. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a 19 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
