TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had not first availed the statutory refund remedy under the tax law.
Analysis: The pleadings and the statutory scheme showed that a dealer claiming refund of excess tax is required to apply in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time under Section 50 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Rule 29 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The existence of a specific refund procedure meant that the Court was not called upon to grant immediate relief in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to move the competent authority in the prescribed form, and the authority was directed to consider the claim on merits after excluding the period spent in the writ proceedings for computing limitation.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory refund remedy.
Final Conclusion: The dispute was disposed of by directing the petitioner to seek refund before the statutory authority under the prescribed procedure, leaving the merits of the refund claim to be decided by that authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory mechanism exists for claiming refund, writ relief will ordinarily not be granted until that remedy is first pursued.
TaxTMI 
