Substantive refund rights under VAT law cannot be defeated by delegated time bars or later procedural objections.

A substantive refund right under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act could not be defeated by Rule 35 introducing a limitation period where Section 43 prescribed none; the refund claims were therefore not time-barred. Refund also could not be denied for want of a formal assessment, because the quarterly returns had been accepted as self-assessment, and the authorities could not later reopen the matter after the assessment period had expired. Procedural objections based on Form XXXIII, TDS challans, or a later certificate format were held insufficient to override the statutory refund entitlement, so the rejection order was quashed and refund was directed with statutory interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 could be rejected as time-barred by applying Rule 35 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules in the absence of any limitation period in Section 43 of the Act; (ii) Whether refund could be denied on the grounds that no formal assessment had been made, the claims were based on annual returns or were unsupported by prescribed Form XXXIII, TDS challans, or the Chartered Accountant's certificate format.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 could be rejected as time-barred by applying Rule 35 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules in the absence of any limitation period in Section 43 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 43 of the Act creates the substantive entitlement to refund of tax paid in excess of the amount due. Rule 35 regulates the manner of claiming refund, but the Act itself does not prescribe any limitation period for filing a refund application. A delegated rule framed under Section 87 cannot curtail or extinguish the substantive refund right by introducing a limitation period where the parent statute contains none. The Court further held that the refund applications were, in any event, filed within a reasonable time and were not liable to be rejected as stale or time-barred.

Conclusion: The limitation-based objection was rejected, and the refund claim could not be defeated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be denied on the grounds that no formal assessment had been made, the claims were based on annual returns or were unsupported by prescribed Form XXXIII, TDS challans, or the Chartered Accountant's certificate format.

Analysis: The quarterly returns had been accepted without demur and were treated as self-assessment under Section 29(3). The respondents could not, after expiry of the assessment period under Section 33, reopen the matter or deny refund on the plea that no assessment had been made. The statutory audit reports furnished under Section 53, together with the material on record, constituted relevant information for processing the refund. The absence of a prescribed refund form at the earlier stage, the later objection regarding Form XXXIII, and the demand for a certificate format introduced only in 2021 were treated as procedural objections that could not override the substantive refund right. The rejection order was found to be contrary to the Act and unsupported by bona fide consideration of the material.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on these grounds was held unsustainable, and the impugned rejection order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned refund rejection was quashed, and the respondents were directed to process and grant the refund with statutory interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent taxing statute confers a substantive refund right without prescribing a limitation period, delegated rules cannot impose a time bar or otherwise defeat that right; accepted self-assessment and duly furnished audit material cannot later be disregarded to deny refund on purely procedural grounds.

---