Haryana VAT refund claims must be raised at assessment; a later application cannot reopen a concluded assessment.

Refund under the Haryana VAT regime must be sought at the assessment stage where excess tax is found, and the assessment scheme allows refund or adjustment only in that manner. Once the assessment order is passed, the assessing authority cannot reopen or vary the concluded assessment through a later refund application; the proper remedy against an assessment showing excess carry-forward rather than refund is the statutory appeal. Rule 42 applies only when a refund has already been granted in the assessment order and then requires reference to the competent committee within the prescribed monetary limits. A post-assessment refund application was therefore not maintainable and Rule 42 did not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund application filed after the assessment order, instead of challenging the assessment by appeal, was maintainable under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003, and whether the refund was required to be placed before the committee under Rule 42.

Analysis: Section 20(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Rule 41(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 contemplate refund or adjustment at the stage of assessment, where the assessing authority finds excess tax paid. The scheme permits the dealer to seek refund or adjustment in the manner provided, but once the assessment order has been passed, the assessing authority cannot reopen or alter the concluded assessment through a later refund application. If the dealer was aggrieved by the assessment reflecting excess carried forward instead of refund, the appropriate course was to invoke the statutory appellate remedy under Section 33(5) of the 2003 Act. Rule 42 applies only where a refund has already been allowed in the assessment order and requires forwarding to the competent committee on the prescribed monetary limits; it does not apply where no refund was granted in the assessment itself.

Conclusion: The later refund application was not maintainable, the assessing authority acted within jurisdiction in rejecting it, and Rule 42 had no application.

---