9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as before the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it is clear that the excess input tax credit, which accrued to the said M/s.Essa Hosiery Mills is not in dispute. Therefore, it will be too late in the day for the Department now to reopen the entire issue and conduct an autopsy of the matter especially because the adjustment was at the behest of the Department. Even assuming that the adjustment was erroneous and it had to be reversed, then the dealer would have to be refunded the entire amount with interest, which, in our opinion, should be not less than 18% per annum. Thus, considering the factual situation and bearing in mind the interest of the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the order dated 04.12.2015 impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2011-12 and as on the date of closure, the said dealer was entitled for a refund of ₹ 15,66,596/-. However, the said M/s.Essa Hosiery Mills was liable to pay a sum of ₹ 81,906/- towards central sales tax liability and after deducting the said amount, they claimed that they were entitled for refund of excess input tax credit of ₹ 14,84,690/-. Since the appellant was also carrying the business within the same assessment circle, it appears that they made a request that the amount, which was refundable to the tune of ₹ 14,84,690/-, might be adjusted towards sales tax arrears payable by the appellant for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. This request was favourably considered by the Assessing Officer and an adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant in their written submissions. The Assessing Officer referred to Section 19(14) of the Act and stated that transfer of excess input tax credit from the said M/s.Essa Hosiery Mills to M/s.Essa Garments could not be made. This order was put to challenge by filing W.P.No.3163 of 2016, which was dismissed by the impugned order. 10. The learned Government Advocate would vehemently contend that the appellant should avail the alternate remedy, which is provided under the Act and that the learned Single Judge rightly refused to entertain the present writ petition. 11. The learned Government Advocate is right in her submission that this Court would be slow in interfering especially with cases arising under the Taxation Statute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appearing for the respondent, the consequence, which would follow is that the Department has to refund the amount of ₹ 14,84,690/- together with interest from January 2015 i.e when the adjustment was made till the date it is paid and the interest should be definitely compensatory. From the facts placed before the Court in the two earlier writ petitions as well as before the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it is clear that the excess input tax credit, which accrued to the said M/s.Essa Hosiery Mills is not in dispute. Therefore, it will be too late in the day for the Department now to reopen the entire issue and conduct an autopsy of the matter especially because the adjustment was at the behest of the Department. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
