Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of excess sales tax determined on reassessment could be withheld merely because suo motu revision proceedings under the Act had been initiated and were pending.
Analysis: Section 12 imposes a mandatory duty on the Commissioner to refund any amount paid in excess of the amount due. The expression "amount due" refers to the liability already determined on reassessment and does not mean an amount that may later be found payable after further proceedings. The proviso to section 12 and the refund rules contemplate an enforceable refund claim on the making of the application, and the statutory time limits for refund processing do not make finality of all possible revisional proceedings a condition precedent. Once the reassessment showed excess payment and notices in form VII were issued, the dealer acquired a right to seek refund. The authorities were bound to act on the refund application under rules 60 to 63 and could not rely on their own failure to dispose of it before starting revision under section 20(3).
Conclusion: The pending suo motu revision did not justify withholding the refund, and the assessee was entitled to the excess amount.
Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment determines tax to have been paid in excess, refund under the sales tax statute becomes enforceable on fulfillment of the prescribed conditions and cannot be defeated merely by the pendency of revisional proceedings.