2019 (1) TMI 813 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Orders Consideration of Refund Application, Emphasizes Decision Rests with Respondent

BCW V Tech India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commissioner (ST) And The Joint Commissioner (ST)

The court refrained from expressing any view on the entitlement of the petitioner to the refund at this stage. Instead, the court directed the first ... Refund of the excess input tax credits - grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the said applications have not been considered so far - principles of natural justice - Held that:- This Court at this stage is not expressing any view as to whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the excess input tax credit or not, since it is for the first respondent to consider such claim and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - as the said applications filed as early as on 10.04.2018 were not considered by the first respondent so far, all these writ petitions are disposed of only with a direction to the first respondent to consider those applications and pass orders on the same on merits - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:- Petitioner seeking mandamus for refund of excess input tax credits for multiple assessment yearsAnalysis:The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders for refund of excess input tax credits for various assessment years. The petitioner claimed refunds of amounts ranging from &8377; 2,94,366 to &8377; 21,81,662 for the years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. The main contention was that the applications for refund filed by the petitioner on 10.04.2018 had not been considered by the first respondent, leading to the grievance brought before the court.The court refrained from expressing any view on the entitlement of the petitioner to the refund at this stage. Instead, the court directed the first respondent to consider the applications for refund and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The court emphasized that this direction should not be construed as a positive direction for refund, as the decision rests with the first respondent based on the merits and legal provisions. The petitioner was also instructed to cooperate with the first respondent by providing any necessary documents for the application process. No costs were awarded in this matter.