https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253702 An order withholding refund under Section 60(1) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act was held unsustainable because the statutory preconditions were not properly recorded: the refund had to be linked to an appeal or further proceeding, the Commissioner had to form an opinion that release would likely prejudice revenue, and recovery might later become impossible. The order was also non-speaking and inconsistent with the duty to grant refund within the prescribed time under Section 57. The dealer was further entitled to a prior hearing, since withholding a refundable amount has civil consequences and natural justice applies unless expressly excluded. The withholding order was therefore set aside for want of statutory compliance and procedural fairness. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253702 An order withholding refund under Section 60(1) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act was held unsustainable because the statutory preconditions were not properly recorded: the refund had to be linked to an appeal or further proceeding, the Commissioner had to form an opinion that release would likely prejudice revenue, and recovery might later become impossible. The order was also non-speaking and inconsistent with the duty to grant refund within the prescribed time under Section 57. The dealer was further entitled to a prior hearing, since withholding a refundable amount has civil consequences and natural justice applies unless expressly excluded. The withholding order was therefore set aside for want of statutory compliance and procedural fairness. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253702