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>High Court directs re-examination of refund claims under 2012 scheme, emphasizes fair review and consideration of delays.</h1> <h3>M/s. Agartala Plastic Pvt Ltd. Versus The State of Tripura, The Secretary to the Government of Tripura, The Director, Department of Industries and Commerce, The Commissioner of Sales Taxes, (TVAT Division), Kunjaban, The Superintendent of Sales Tax, Agartala.</h3> M/s. Agartala Plastic Pvt Ltd. Versus The State of Tripura, The Secretary to the Government of Tripura, The Director, Department of Industries and ... Issues:Challenge to order rejecting refund claims under Tripura Industrial Incentives Promotion Scheme, 2012 based on delay in application submission.Analysis:The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing, filed refund claims under the Tripura Industrial Incentives Promotion Scheme, 2012 for specific periods. The District Industries Centre rejected the claims due to submission after the two-year period. The petitioner explained the delay was due to non-issuance of necessary VAT payment certificates by the authorities. The High Court, in a previous order, directed re-examination of the case considering the delay reason provided by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that one government department's delay should not hinder benefits under the scheme, and the District Industrial Centre should review the representations made by the petitioner.The respondent, the General Manager, DIC, West Tripura, subsequently rejected the petitioner's applications again citing delay. However, the Court found the respondent's order lacking proper understanding of the previous court order and scheme provisions. The respondent's reasons for rejection were deemed incorrect, as the Court had directed a detailed examination of the delay issue due to non-issuance of certificates. The respondent's stance on the scheme not allowing condonation of delay and suggesting alternative document submission was deemed erroneous.The Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2021, directing the authority to re-examine the refund applications on merit within two months. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous court directions and properly considering the petitioner's explanations for the delay. The judgment ensures a fair review of the refund claims under the Tripura Industrial Incentives Promotion Scheme, 2012, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the reasons for delay in application submission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
