AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to refund the excess tax paid by him, pursuant to notice dated 1-6-2012 issued by the second respondent-authority (Annexure-J) for the assessment period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The petitioner has also sought interest on that amount at the rate of 6% p.a. vide Section 50 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short). Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium fabrication, frames, glazed panels and execution of works contract and that it is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 also. That it has filed its return of turnover in Form VAT 100 before respondent 3 and the said returns were assessed u/s 38 of the Act and thereafter was subject to reassessment u/s 39 of the Act. After reassessment, Annexure-J has been issued to the petitioner on 1-6-2012, which is the re-revised notice of excess payment. Under that document, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,06,89,301/- after adjustment of tax dues. The grievance of the petitioner is that since June 2012, the said amount has not been refunded. Hence, a direction is sought in that regard.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.
During the course of submission, petitioner''s Counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Another, , and contended that the respondent-authorities are duty bound to refund the amount within a reasonable period and that withholding of the said amount would amount to violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has drawn my attention to a notice purportedly dated 10-7-2014 to be issued to the petitioner for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings at Annexure-J, which is the re-revised notice of refund and therefore, no direction can be issued at this stage.
In response to that, petitioner''s Counsel contended that the writ petition was filed on 8-7-2014 and the draft notice has been prepared only for the purpose of persuading this Court to decline to grant relief to the petitioner. He also contended that as no notice has been issued to the petitioner, he is entitled for refund in terms of the re-revised notice referred to above. It is not in dispute that as per Annexure-J, dated 1-6-2014, the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid amount by way of refund. It is also not in dispute that till date that amount has not been refunded to the petitioner. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid decision, has categorically stated that withholding of refund to an assessee is permissible only when other proceeding under the Act is pending or where the Assessing Authority is of the opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue. Where none of the aforesaid conditions or circumstances are existing in the instant case, then refusal to refund is illegal. The reason that revisional orders are awaited from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax is not a relevant ground or reason to withhold the refund, particularly when it is not shown that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax has already initiated revisional proceedings under the Act.
The aforesaid dictum is squarely applicable in the present case. In the circumstances, the authorities are directed to refund Rs. 1,06,89,301/- along with interest at 6% p.a. in accordance with Section 50 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed.