https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793974 Refund claims under the Tripura VAT Act cannot be rejected for non-production of documents not required by Rule 35, especially where the prescribed particulars were already furnished and the missing papers were part of the returns. A limitation clause in Rule 35(4) could not validly bar a refund claim because Section 43 creates the refund right without prescribing a limitation period, and delegated legislation cannot extinguish that substantive right. An appeal under Section 69 was not an effective alternative remedy against an order refusing refund, so the writ petition was maintainable. The refund rejection was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with interest to follow if refund is ultimately admissible. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793974 Refund claims under the Tripura VAT Act cannot be rejected for non-production of documents not required by Rule 35, especially where the prescribed particulars were already furnished and the missing papers were part of the returns. A limitation clause in Rule 35(4) could not validly bar a refund claim because Section 43 creates the refund right without prescribing a limitation period, and delegated legislation cannot extinguish that substantive right. An appeal under Section 69 was not an effective alternative remedy against an order refusing refund, so the writ petition was maintainable. The refund rejection was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with interest to follow if refund is ultimately admissible. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793974