2014 (2) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner's application in Form 501 which the petitioner had sought to file within the limitation period of 3 years. 3. The relevant year is the Financial Year 2009-10. The petitioner filed its return for this year on 22 April 2010 entitling the petitioner to refund of Rs. 33,38,715/. No assessment order has yet been passed. However, on or around 20 August 2012, the petitioner in terms of section 51 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002) filed an application for refund of Rs. 33,38,715/abs electronically but the system would not accept it. Thereafter by letters dated 21 August 2012, the petitioner addressed communication to the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax seeking accept....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts were made to certain provisions of the MVAT Act, 2002. One of the amendment is to section 51 of the MVAT Act, 2002. The said amendment made by Maharashtra Act No.XV of 2011 reads as under: "Amendment of section 51 of Mah. Act IX of 2005: In section 51 of the Value Added Tax Act: (4) in subsection (7), for the words "three years" the words "eighteen months" shall be substituted." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment is prospective and not retrospective. Hence the limitation period of three years, which was available to the petitioner for making a refund application for the year 200910 upto 31 March 2013, has not been curtailed by the Legislature. The period of limitation would be 18 months for the relevant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contents of this circular to the notice of all the members of your association." 8. It is submitted on behalf of the revenue that the above circular was given wide publicity and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have submitted its application for refund by 31 December 2011 or at least upto 7 January 2012 which was the extended date. Further the learned counsel submits that the petition ought to be dismissed as this Court has upheld the validity of section 51(7) of the MVAT Act, 2002 in Mahalaxmi Cotton, Ginning Pressing & Oil Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 33 of 2012 decided on 11 May 2012). Further reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic, (1996) 4 SC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide a bar to an existing cause of action by abridging the time for its institution could hardly be described as merely procedural. They would affect substantial rights." 10. In the facts of the instant case, it is clear that when the petitioner sought to submit the application on 20 August 2012 claiming refund for the year 200910, the three years period of limitation had not yet expired as the same was to expire on 31 March 2013. In this view of the matter, the right which was vested in the petitioner or at least which was an existing right on the date of amendment on 21 April 2011, could not have been taken away without express terms or necessary intendment in the Amending Act. Having gone through the provisions of the Amending Act, as qu....