9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 05.02.2019 passed in consideration of the petitioner letter dated 30.01.2019 to adjust excess credit of Rs.44,66,069/- towards outstanding balances under the APVAT and CST Acts is against to his own refund audit proceedings passed in AO. No.140748 dated 20.12.2018 for the tax period April-2014 to March-2017 and also against to circular instructions in CCT's Ref. No.AI(1)/12/2014 dated 28.07.2015 and also questioning the inaction on the letter filed by the petitioner for release of cash refund of Rs.44,66,069/- dated 25.03.2019 and reminded by letter 30.06.2022 was against to Sub-Rule 12 and 13 of Rule 59 read with Section 38(1)(b) of the AP VAT Act & Rules, 2005 is without jurisdiction and also violation of principles of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "The said available ITC relates to the period of the pre bifurcation of the Andhra Pradesh State. As per the Circular instruction No. AI(1)/12/2014, Dt.28.07.2015 issued by the CCT, AP, Hyderabad, the provisional Net 28 NCCF not availed by the dealer by the end of March, 2016 for any reason, the same would be quantified and refunded on conducting the refund audit as per the request of the dealer. In their case a general audit was conducted prior to the bifurcation of A.P. State i.e. upto 31.05.2014. In order to complete refund audit, cross verification of purchase transactions and input tax claimed thereon prior to the state bifurcation and reports are to be obtained, as such, the available ITC which accrued prior to the state bifurcati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in a position to consider the claim of the petitioner. He submits that once the audit is over, the petitioner would be given the amount to which he is entitled. 4. From the statement made by learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, it is very clear that the petitioner is entitled for refund, but the same is not being paid due to technical reasons. 5. At this stage, Sri K. Adi Siva Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since 2019, the petitioner is making every effort, but their inaction made him to file the present writ petition and pleads that a direction may be given to the concerned authorities for payment of the amount. 6. From the arguments advanced by both the counsel, more particularly, lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as refund separately following the due procedure under the provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005." 7. At the same time, the proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bapatla dated 20.12.2018 vide AO No.140748 [VAT 305] clearly show that the refund claim for the period is about Rs.44,66,069/- and the Net payable to the Department is 'NIL'. The above two documents, referred to, would show that the petitioner is entitled for cash refund of Rs.44,66,069/-. The said fact, as stated by us earlier was not seriously opposed by learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes as well. But, his objection is because of the technicalities involved; as it relates that pre-bifurcation of State and no audit for refund has been done so far. 8. At this sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
