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 allows writ petitions, directs assessment under Tamil Nadu VAT Act, emphasizing timely refunds</h1> <h3>R.K. Knits Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT) Adyar II Assessment Circle, Chennai and others</h3> The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim for input-tax credit on goods used for export. The court ... Refund of input tax credit - rejection on the ground that form W was filed belatedly - violation of section 19(18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with rule 10(10)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 Issues:1. Refusal of refund of input-tax credit on the purchase of goods used for export.2. Interpretation of provisions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 regarding input-tax credit and refund claims.3. Compliance with time limits for filing refund claims and the role of form W in the process.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the rejection of the refund claim for input-tax credit on goods used for export. The respondent rejected the claim citing a belated filing of form W, violating specific sections and rules of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.2. The petitioner contended that they followed the Act by purchasing raw materials locally, using them for manufacturing goods for export, and claiming input-tax credit in compliance with section 19. The petitioner argued that the respondent's rejection was unfounded as they had consistently disclosed input-tax credit in monthly returns and were entitled to a refund of Rs. 32,00,151.30.3. The respondent, in defense, cited time limits for refund claims under sections 18 and 19 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of filing form W within 180 days for zero-rated sales. However, the court noted that the petitioner had diligently filed returns in form I within the prescribed time, indicating compliance with the Act's provisions. The court highlighted the necessity for the assessing officer to consider monthly returns promptly and pass orders accordingly.4. The judgment emphasized that the provisions for input-tax credit were beneficial and required timely assessment of claims. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim and directing the assessment to be done in accordance with section 22 of the Act based on the details provided in form I. The court stressed the importance of expeditious assessment to facilitate the refund process.5. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions, timely filing of returns, and the need for assessing officers to consider refund claims promptly. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural compliance and the duty of authorities to facilitate legitimate refund claims under the tax legislation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
