9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revisional Authority was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner relying upon Section 20(2)(a)(b) of the Act without taking into consideration Section 20(4) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- The Revisional Authority has decided the issue in hand without resorting to Section 20(4) of the Act. No reason has been assigned by the Revisional Authority as to why the case of the petitioner will not fall within the ambit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The counsel for the respondents has failed to spell any reason as to why the case of the petitioner will not be covered under Section 20(4) of the Act. Once it is admitted that the Assessing Authority on assessment found that the petitioner has paid an amount in excess of tax, interest or penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2013-14. As per the petitioner, for the assessment year 2014-15, refund of ₹ 39,16,641/- was also allowed and the aforesaid amounts of ₹ 1,64,64,571/- for the assessment year 2013- 13 and that of ₹ 39,16,641/- for the assessment year 2014-15, were carried forward to the assessment year 2015-16. For the assessment year 2015-16, amount of refund swelled to ₹ 2,78,04,483/- and the said amount was further carried forward for the assessment year 2016-17. For the assessment year 2016-17 assessment was framed and ₹ 2,67,24,795/- became due to the petitioner. The said amount was carried forward to the assessment year 2017-18 and on framing of assessment for the assessment year of 2017-18, a refund of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present lis exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The short question that arises for the consideration of this Court is as to whether the Revisional Authority was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner relying upon Section 20(2)(a)(b) of the Act without taking into consideration Section 20(4) of the Act. Under the Act, Section 20 governs the claim of refund, which reads as under :- Section 20. (1) If any person has charged any amount purposed to be tax in excess of the tax leviable, no order allowing refund of the excess amount shall be passed in his favour by any authority under this Act or by any court unless he refunds such amount to those from whom it war charged, and where ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dealer that he has paid any amount in excess of tax, interest or penalty assessed or imposed on him under this Act, it shall allow refund of the excess amount or allow the same to be carried forward for adjustment with future tax liability, as the case may be. (5) Any amount refundable to any person as a result of an order passed by any court, appellate authority or revising authority, shall be refunded to him on an application containing the prescribed particulars accompanied with the prescribed documents made in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. (6) The amount refundable under the foregoing provisions of this section to any person shall be subject to the approval in the prescribed manner of the prescribed auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause the delay for the period in question has been due to the fault of the assessee entitled to the refund, such question shall, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, be determined by the Commissioner by an order in writing. 9. On perusing the impugned order, we find that Revisional Authority has decided the issue in hand without resorting to Section 20(4) of the Act. No reason has been assigned by the Revisional Authority as to why the case of the petitioner will not fall within the ambit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The counsel for the respondents has failed to spell any reason as to why the case of the petitioner will not be covered under Section 20(4) of the Act. Once it is admitted that the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
