TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the authority exercising power under rule 36 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, while considering approval of a refund, could reopen and set aside the assessment order on merits, and whether the availability of appeal or revision barred writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: Rule 36 and section 43 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 contemplate determination and sanction of refund after an assessment has already been made, with only the amount refundable and any permissible adjustment of dues to be examined. The power of the sanctioning authority is confined to scrutiny of the refund claim and does not extend to review, appeal, or revision of the assessment order. An assessment order remains operative unless altered in proper proceedings under sections 39 or 40. Therefore, an authority acting under rule 36 has no jurisdiction to disregard or annul the assessment on merits. The objection based on alternate remedy was also rejected because a writ petition is maintainable where the impugned action is without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The authority under rule 36 could not set aside the assessment order while dealing with the refund, and the impugned order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The petitions were thus allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: An authority empowered only to sanction or determine refund cannot exercise appellate or revisional powers or reopen a concluded assessment; its role is limited to working out the refund and making lawful adjustments of dues.
TaxTMI 
