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 delay in filing Form W beyond the stipulated period could by itself justify rejection of refund claim arising from zero-rated sales when monthly Form I returns had been filed.
Analysis: Section 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was relied on by the Revenue to contend that input tax credit would lapse if a refund claim was not made within 180 days from the date of zero-rated sale. The Court followed earlier decisions holding that, where the turnover is admittedly export turnover and the dealer has filed monthly Form I returns, the refund claim cannot be rejected merely because Form W was filed belatedly or in manual form. The statutory refund mechanism was treated as a beneficial provision, and the proper course was to examine the admissibility and genuineness of the claim on merits.
Conclusion: The delay in filing Form W did not by itself bar consideration of the refund claim. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for verification of Form I returns and refund eligibility.
Final Conclusion: The refund claims were required to be reconsidered on merits, and the writ petitions succeeded with a remand for fresh verification by the assessing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim arising from zero-rated sales cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form W where the dealer has otherwise filed the prescribed monthly returns and the claim is capable of verification on merits.