TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies writ of mandamus for VAT refund on capital goods, directs petitioner to pursue refund process</h1> <h3>Nandikeshwara Offset Prints Versus State of Karnataka and another</h3> The court declined to issue the writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioner regarding the refund of value-added tax paid on the purchase of capital ... - Issues:1. Claim for refund of value-added tax paid on the purchase of capital goods.2. Request to adjust rebate amount against other tax liabilities.3. Relief sought through a writ petition for refund and other reliefs.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, filed Form VAT-170 seeking rebate for the value-added tax paid on the purchase of capital goods. The petitioner requested a refund of the amount, claiming that the business turnover was not commensurate to utilize the entire rebate. The petitioner also sought to avail of the rebate against other tax liabilities. However, the authorities did not accede to these requests, leading to the filing of a writ petition for relief.2. The court noted that unless the petitioner had followed the claim for rebate as permitted by law and demonstrated that the amount was not fully utilized, a refund could not be granted. The lack of quantification of the refund amount and the absence of a definite claim known to law or authority were highlighted. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus for refund could only be issued after ascertaining the specific amount to which the petitioner was entitled under the law.3. Consequently, the court declined to issue the writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioner. Instead, it directed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the authorities as permitted by law to seek the reliefs available. The judgment emphasized that the specific amount for refund must be determined before a writ of mandamus for refund could be issued, and such determinations were not within the scope of a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs through the prescribed legal channels.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
