https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403805 Refund claims under Section 50 of the Assam VAT Act and Rule 29 of the Assam VAT Rules must ordinarily be filed within 180 days of assessment or reassessment, but delayed claims may still be admitted on sufficient cause. A refusal of delay condonation must record reasons showing why the explanation was rejected. Here, the rejection order only stated that proof of timely filing was not furnished and did not examine the explanation, assessment records, or refund entitlement. The High Court held that a quasi-judicial order must stand on its own reasons, so a later affidavit could not cure the omission. The impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2021 09:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403805 Refund claims under Section 50 of the Assam VAT Act and Rule 29 of the Assam VAT Rules must ordinarily be filed within 180 days of assessment or reassessment, but delayed claims may still be admitted on sufficient cause. A refusal of delay condonation must record reasons showing why the explanation was rejected. Here, the rejection order only stated that proof of timely filing was not furnished and did not examine the explanation, assessment records, or refund entitlement. The High Court held that a quasi-judicial order must stand on its own reasons, so a later affidavit could not cure the omission. The impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403805