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>VAT refund allowed without separate application filing under Section 23 self-assessment returns sufficient</h1> <h3>The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax VAT -I MS, Mumbai Versus Ortek Computers</h3> The Bombay HC disposed of an appeal regarding VAT refund claims under Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002. The assessee filed self-assessment returns for 2010-2011 ... True and proper construction of Section 51 (7) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 - mere filing of self-assessment returns under Section 20 (1) r/w. Section 50 of the MVAT Act, 2002, is sufficient without filing application for refund as per law to claim refund when it is mandatory to file refund application on portal within stipulated limitation - mandate to submit E-form-501, within stipulated period of limitation to claim refund despite filing of self-assessment returns under Section 20 (1) r/w. Section 50 of the MVAT Act, 2002 - correctness in directing Assessing Authority to process application of refund when it was neither filed as per law nor within limitation - applicability of decision in Mahalaxmi Cotton and Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries v/s. The State of Maharashtra [2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - limitation with respect to claim of refund ought to be considered in view of the provisions of u/s. 23 of the MVAT Act or not. HELD THAT:- The Appellant/Assessee before the Tribunal, being a dealer registered under the MVAT Act, had filed returns for the period 2010-2011 showing a refund of Rs. 4,56,216/-. However, the said refund was not granted to the Assessee. Hence, a letter was written to the Nodal Officer. The Commissioner of State Tax (D-901), Nodal Division-5, vide Order dated 19th May, 2018, rejected the Assessee’s request for refund on the ground that the Assessee had failed to apply for grant of refund within the prescribed time. It was mentioned that the application for refund in respect of Assessment Year 2010-2011 was time barred under the provisions of Section 23 of the MVAT Act. The Tribunal (in M/s. Om Shree Developers), after relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vichare and Co. Pvt. Ltd., v/s. State of Maharashtra & Others [2015 (3) TMI 1403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], came to the conclusion that the Department had misconstrued the legal provisions and the right to get a refund under Section 51 (1) to (7) of the Act. The Tribunal held that if the dealer has paid an excess amount than what it is liable to pay, then the excess is not the property of the Department, or of the Government, but it is the property of the dealer, who is entitled to get a refund after scrutiny of the returns. In these circumstances, the Tribunal (in M/s. Om Shree Developers) allowed the Appeal and directed the Assessing Authority to scrutinize/ assess the returns submitted by the Appellant [i.e. Om Shree Developers], in accordance with law, at the earliest. Conclusion - The self-assessment returns are sufficient for refund claims and that the Department must process the Assessee's refund application. The appeal was disposed of with a directive for the Department to scrutinize the returns and process any due refund within six months. Appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment addresses the following core legal questions:(a) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal correctly interpreted Section 51(7) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, in holding that filing self-assessment returns under Section 20(1) read with Section 50 is sufficient for claiming a refund without a formal application.(b) Whether it is mandatory to submit E-form-501 within the stipulated period for claiming a refund, despite filing self-assessment returns.(c) Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the Assessing Authority to process a refund application that was not filed in compliance with the law or within the limitation period.(d) Whether the Tribunal's decision contradicts the legal precedent set by the High Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Cotton and Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries v/s. The State of Maharashtra.(e) Whether the issue of limitation for claiming a refund should be considered under Section 23 of the MVAT Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Filing of Self-assessment Returns and Requirement of E-form-501- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The MVAT Act requires dealers to file self-assessment returns under Section 20(1) and allows for refunds under Section 51(7). The Tribunal previously held in M/s. Om Shree Developers that refunds can be claimed through self-assessment returns or by filing Form 501.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the filing of self-assessment returns could suffice for claiming a refund. The High Court supported this interpretation, noting the Tribunal's consistent application of this principle.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on its decision in M/s. Om Shree Developers, which was accepted by the Department, indicating that self-assessment returns could be a valid basis for claiming refunds.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Assessee's filing of returns for 2010-2011, indicating a refund, was sufficient for the claim, despite the absence of E-form-501.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that a formal application was necessary, citing the Department's acceptance of similar cases.- Conclusions: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that self-assessment returns could be used to claim refunds without E-form-501.Issue (c): Tribunal's Direction to Process Refund Application- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal's authority to direct the processing of refund applications is grounded in its interpretation of Section 51(7) and related provisions.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court agreed with the Tribunal's directive, emphasizing the need for consistency in the application of legal principles.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal's decision in M/s. Om Shree Developers was pivotal, highlighting the Department's acceptance of similar interpretations.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Tribunal's directive was appropriate given the Department's previous acceptance of similar cases.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the Revenue's objections, noting the inconsistency in their approach.- Conclusions: The Court upheld the Tribunal's direction to process the refund application.Issue (d): Alleged Contradiction with Mahalaxmi Cotton Case- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Mahalaxmi Cotton case was cited to argue a contradiction in legal interpretation.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found no contradiction, as the principles applied by the Tribunal were consistent with established interpretations.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the Department's acceptance of the Tribunal's interpretation in similar cases.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found the Tribunal's decision consistent with legal precedents.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the Revenue's assertion of contradiction, emphasizing consistency in legal application.- Conclusions: The Court concluded there was no contradiction with the Mahalaxmi Cotton case.Issue (e): Limitation for Claiming Refund- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 23 of the MVAT Act pertains to the limitation period for claims.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Tribunal's interpretation of limitation was consistent with legal principles.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal's reliance on M/s. Om Shree Developers was significant, highlighting the Department's acceptance of similar cases.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found the Tribunal's interpretation of limitation appropriate given the Department's previous acceptance.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing consistency in legal application.- Conclusions: The Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation regarding the limitation period.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'This Court in a catena of decisions has held that where the department accepts the principle laid down by the Tribunal in one case and let it become final, then the department is not entitled to raise the same point in other cases. The department cannot pick and choose.'- Core Principles Established:The Department cannot selectively challenge Tribunal decisions when it has accepted similar interpretations in other cases. Filing self-assessment returns can suffice for refund claims without the necessity of E-form-501.- Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation of the MVAT Act, confirming that self-assessment returns are sufficient for refund claims and that the Department must process the Assessee's refund application. The appeal was disposed of with a directive for the Department to scrutinize the returns and process any due refund within six months.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
