Unavailable appellate remedy and post-assessment refund under VAT law justified writ relief and refund with statutory interest.

An unavailable statutory appellate forum does not bar writ relief where the remedy is illusory, so constitutional writ jurisdiction may be invoked. Where assessment records payment of tax, interest or penalty in excess of liability, the refund must be examined under the specific post-assessment refund provision rather than the general refund provision. On the facts found by the Assessing Authority, Section 20(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 governed the claim, and reliance on Section 20(2)(a)(b) was unsustainable. The revisional order was set aside and refund of the excess amount with statutory interest was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy when the Tribunal was not functional; (ii) whether the refund claim was governed by Section 20(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 rather than Section 20(2)(a)(b) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appeal remedy when the Tribunal was not functional.

Analysis: Though an appellate remedy was provided under the Act, the appellate forum was not functional. In such a situation, the petitioner could not be relegated to an illusory remedy, and the constitutional writ jurisdiction could be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was governed by Section 20(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 rather than Section 20(2)(a)(b) of that Act.

Analysis: The refund arose from the assessment finding that the petitioner had paid an amount in excess of tax, interest, or penalty. That situation fell within the specific post-assessment refund mechanism under Section 20(4). The Revisional Authority did not address that provision and proceeded only on Section 20(2)(a)(b), which was not the governing provision on the facts found by the Assessing Authority.

Conclusion: The refund claim was governed by Section 20(4), and denial of refund by relying on Section 20(2)(a)(b) was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of the excess amount with statutory interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where assessment records payment of tax, interest, or penalty in excess of liability, the refund must be considered under the specific post-assessment refund provision, and an unavailable statutory appeal remedy does not bar writ relief.

---