Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with ' ' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: ' ' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

WhatsApp Join Channel
Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
From To
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID: 107312
Like 0 Bookmark

VAT Refund

Date 10 Sep 2014
Replies 2 Replies
Views 1604 Views
Asked by
VAT refund denial risk from omitted supplier entries can be contested with audit reconciliation and appeal remedies.
Omission of supplier-wise entries in Annexure J(2) of Form 704 may be addressed by submitting an audit report and ledger reconciliation as documentary evidence; clerical mistakes can be corrected through cross-verification with the supplier's statutory records, but substantive deficiencies discovered on verification may lead the department to disallow the refund, and corrections can be barred by statutory time limits, with appeal remedies available. (AI Summary)

Dear sir,

We are the manufacturer of textile and textile products, while submitting the Form 704 to the dept of sales Govt. of Maharashtra our personal has made a mistake that the party's name was not mentioned in the J2 annex. Now the said party has raised the debit note on us and demanding the payment. Actually we have to collect the sum from him for the supply we had made. This matter pertaining to the period of 2009-10. Party's justification is that the assessment is going on for the said period and the dept has disallowed the refund for him worth our supply. Now my query is can the dept., disallow the refund to the party on our mistake. We had reconciled his ledger and issued confirmation certificate. Please do reply with suitable law rule and section of Maharashtra VAT.

Thanks,

Kiran Pai

2 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Like 0
Replied on Sep 10, 2014
1.

Dear Kiran,

In the Annexure J(2), you were supposed to provide the supplier wise vat purchases' information which inadvertently could not be provided for some or other reasons. Audit report under section 61 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, read with Rule 65 of the MVAT Rules is required to be filed /signed and certified by the Auditor on the basis of Balance Sheet. If the gross amount mentioned in the report and not mentioned in the annexures then a reconciliation can be submitted in this regard. Further, you are also providing the certificate after conducted the ledger reconciliation to the supplier. In our view it is a clerical mistake which can be corrected. Further this report pertains to year 2009-10 which is no time barred for any corrections. However, you can get it cross verified within the Department. We understand this matter can be sorted out on submission of documentary evidences.

Further, if by cross verification of suppliers statutory records and with your statutory records, if there is any deficiency, then, Department may disallow the refund. Further, either you or you supplier may file an appeal against the impugned order.

You may also seek help of your counsel who in-turn discuss and sort out this matter with your suppliers' assessing authorities.

Regards,

YAGAY and SUN

(Management and Indirect Tax Consultants)

Like 0
Replied on Sep 11, 2014
2.

Dear Kiran,

While replying to the answer to your query, we have committed a typo mistake in the 7th line of our reply.

" Further this report pertains to year 2009-10 which is no time barred for any corrections. "

Please read it as, "Further this report pertains to year 2009-10 which is now time barred for any corrections."

Sorry for inconvenience caused to you due to inadvertent typo mistake in our reply to your query.

Regards,

Pradeep Khatri

Founder - YAGAY and SUN

(Management and Indirect Tax Consultants)

Recent Issues