9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petroleum Company Ltd. The assessment for the years from 2008 - 2009 to 2011-2012 were completed and the amount found to be paid in excess for the years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 were carry forwarded to the year 2011-2012. An amount of Rs. 20,11,109/- was found to have been paid in excess as per the order dated 22.08.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has filed a representation dated 13.01.2015 before the assessing authority for refund of the said amount and thereafter, a writ petition was filed before this Court, W.P. (C.) No. 7071/2015 seeking a direction to sanction refund amount with interest. This Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2015, disposed of the said writ petition, with direction to the assessing authority to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the High Court in its judgment dated 31.03.2015 was complied with in respect of the assessment year 2011-2012. Later on, it was found that some mistake in calculating the interest on refund had occurred for the assessment year 2011-12 and therefore, the order for the assessment year 2012-13 was rectified by which an amount of Rs. 21,51,887/- was given credit and balance amount of Rs. 22,18,689/- was found due for the year 2012-13 as per the rectified order dated 16.10.2015. 4. In the meantime, Deputy Commissioner Thiruvananthapuram suo-motu proposed the cancellation of the assessment order for the year 2011- 12 on finding certain irregularities in the assessment order. Thereafter, the assessment order was completed and the rectifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the petitioner in Ext. P-23 order dated 04.09.2023 was issued and an order of refund was limited to Rs. 49,96,500/-. 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the remedy lies elsewhere under the Statute itself. This Court cannot enter into the factual dispute as it is for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority against the said order if he is not satisfied with the order passed for refund in the impugned order. This court is not an appellate authority under the provisions of the KGST Act to examine the merit of the assessment/refund order. The appropriate remedy would be to approach the authority under the Statute itself and not invoke the public law remedy by filing the writ petition. Thus, I find no substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
