2022 (7) TMI 606 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders refund with interest under APVAT Act, 2005. Respondents instructed to comply within 3 months.

M/s. Venkateswara Electricals, Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Joint Commissioner (CT), Commercial Tax Officer,

The Court ordered the respondents to refund the amount due to the petitioner, along with applicable interest as per the APVAT Act, 2005 and Rules. The ... Seeking a direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.21,55,781/- along with interest due thereon @ 1.25% per month in terms of Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 35 of the APVAT Rules - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a year. But, no amount has been released or credited to the account of the petitioner. The plea urged by the respondents is that they are awaiting fund clearance for refund of the amount. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refund the amount which the petitioner is entitled to with interest calculated therein as per the provisions of Section 38 (1)(a) of APVAT Act, 2005 r/w. Sub-Section 6 of APVAT Rules, 2005, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Issues:Claim for refund under APVAT Act, 2005 - Delay in refund process - Compliance with statutory provisions regarding refund timeline.Analysis:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refund a specific amount along with interest as per the APVAT Rules. The petitioner had submitted the necessary documents for the refund, and the Commercial Tax Officer had approved the refund, which was further verified and forwarded for processing. However, despite the approval and verification, the refund was not processed within a reasonable time frame, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition.The Court noted that as per Section 38(1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund should be made within 90 days from the date of claim by the dealer. In this case, the claim was pending for almost a year without any action on the refund. The respondents cited fund clearance as the reason for the delay, but the Court directed them to adhere to the statutory timeline for refund under the Act.In the judgment, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by ordering the respondents to refund the amount due to the petitioner, along with the applicable interest as per the provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005 and the APVAT Rules, 2005. The respondents were directed to process the refund within three months from the date of the Court's order, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions. The Court also mentioned that there would be no order regarding costs in this matter, and any pending miscellaneous petitions would stand closed.