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 directs prompt processing of refund claims emphasizing substance over procedure</h1> <h3>Tvl. Shakthi Tech Versus State Tax Officer, Velandipalayam Circle, Coimbatore</h3> The court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the rejection of a refund claim for not being filed online as mandated. Emphasizing the timely ... Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground that the claim has not been made online and Form W has been filed manually - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no dispute on the position that the turnover has been derived from direct exports and are thus zero rated. The petitioner has filed monthly returns on time. The claim for refund is also in time. Barring the fact that it is in a manual form, there is no other infirmity that arises. Till date there has been no disturbance of the deemed assessments for the months in question. The impugned orders are set aside and the claims directed to be processed and refund issued as expeditiously as possible - Petition allowed. Issues:Claim for refund rejected for not being filed online as per mandatory requirement.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the rejection of a claim for refund for the months of August and September, 2012, solely because the claim was not made online as mandated from 01.01.2012. The respondent Officer rejected the claim as Form W was filed manually. However, the court referred to a previous case where it was held that filing a claim via a manual form cannot be a ground for rejection. The court directed the respondent to assess the admissibility and genuineness of the claim, emphasizing that delay in submitting a manual form should not lead to refusal of the application.The petitioner in the present case derived turnover from direct exports, making it zero-rated. Monthly returns were filed on time, and the claim for refund was also timely. Despite being in a manual form, there were no other deficiencies noted. Importantly, there had been no disturbance of the deemed assessments for the relevant months. Given these facts, the court set aside the impugned orders, directing the claims to be processed promptly for the refund to be issued without delay.In conclusion, the court allowed the Writ Petitions, emphasizing that the rejection of the claim for not being filed online was unjustified, especially considering the timely submission of returns and the absence of any other irregularities. The judgment highlights the importance of assessing the substance of a claim rather than focusing on procedural technicalities, ensuring that legitimate refund claims are not unfairly denied based on formality.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
