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, in the case of a dealer covered by Section 51(3) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and having furnished a bank guarantee, the refund application could be kept pending indefinitely and whether the authorities were bound to take an expeditious decision and grant the refund provisionally in accordance with law.
Analysis: Section 51 creates a general refund mechanism, but for specified dealers falling under Section 51(3) it permits the Commissioner to seek a bank guarantee and additional information. The non obstante clause in Section 51(5) is material: once the bank guarantee is furnished, the Commissioner is required to grant the refund due within one month, irrespective of whether additional information has been furnished. At the same time, the provision does not exclude a reasonable verification of entitlement, since refunds concern public revenue and the authority remains entitled to ensure that the claim is not misused. Section 51(6)(b) protects the revenue by enabling recovery of excess refund with interest if the amount later found due is lower. The statutory scheme therefore permits verification, but not indefinite delay.
Conclusion: The authorities were directed to complete verification expeditiously and to grant any refund found due and payable in accordance with law, provisionally and preferably within one month, leaving the claim for interest open to be pursued separately.