Provisional refund under revised VAT returns must reflect corrected computation and cannot be curtailed without rational basis.

Provisional refund under section 20(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 may be examined on the basis of a revised return and correction application, not confined automatically to the original VAT-A4 and return figures. Where the assessing authority accepts the corrected computation, any restriction on refund must rest on a rational basis and not on a bare reference to "interest of revenue". The document notes that an accepted corrected claim should be considered for the actual refund due, and that an unsupported restriction on provisional refund is arbitrary and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for provisional refund under section 20(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be limited to the amount reflected in the original VAT-A4 and returns, despite a revised return and correction application; (ii) whether the provisional refund could be restricted merely on the ground of "interest of revenue" after the authority had accepted the corrected computation.

Issue (i): Whether an application for provisional refund under section 20(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be limited to the amount reflected in the original VAT-A4 and returns, despite a revised return and correction application.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits a dealer to seek provisional refund by application to the assessing authority, which must examine the application and make a prima facie assessment. The authority is not confined to the original return alone where a correction or revision has been made and the corrected position is not shown to be legally impermissible. A provisional refund application can be considered on the basis of the corrected return and the actual refund due, subject to other relevant circumstances under section 20.

Conclusion: The corrected return and refund claim had to be considered, and the refund could not be confined only to the original claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional refund could be restricted merely on the ground of "interest of revenue" after the authority had accepted the corrected computation.

Analysis: The impugned order itself accepted the assessee's liability and the refund computation on the corrected basis, yet restricted the provisional refund without recording any supporting reason apart from a general reference to revenue interest. Once the corrected computation was accepted, limiting the refund without a rational basis was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The restriction of provisional refund to Rs. 39 lakhs solely on the stated ground was unsustainable.

---