2009 (6) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a refund application in the prescribed form as evidenced by exhibit P1. Through exhibit P2 notice, the first respondent informed the petitioner that refund of excess input tax cannot be made for want of details. The petitioner was requested to produce tax payment details from various offices of the Forest Departments. Through exhibit P3, the petitioner replied that the bills produced by him are issued from the Government depots and it will clearly disclose collection of tax on the sale value of the timber. Further it was pointed out that the tax amounts were paid through separate demand drafts and particulars of such remittances were already furnished along with the monthly returns,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments of which are proved through production of bills and copies of demand drafts. According to him, even if any cross-verification is needed, it is the duty of the assessing authority concerned, and that the petitioner could not be insisted to obtain any further certificates. Therefore the rejection of the claim for refund is totally unsustainable, is the contention.   The contention of the learned Government Pleader at the first instance is that, exhibit P4 is an appealable order and therefore the validity of the same could not be challenged in a writ petition. On a careful examination of exhibit P4 it is evident that the refund is not denied, as one not admissible. On the other hand the claim petition itself is rejected on a tech....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The burden of proving that a dealer is entitled to the refund under this rule shall be on the dealer who claims the refund. (3)(i) On receipt of the application in form No. 21C the assessing authority shall, if it is satisfied after such enquiry as it considers necessary, that input tax credit has not been availed of in respect of such goods and that the claim of refund is otherwise admissible, pass an order in form No. 21K refunding the tax within three months from the date on which the dealer submitted all the relevant records rectifying the defects, if any, pointed out."   On an analysis of the issue involved in this writ petition on the context of the above quoted provisions, two questions emerge for decision. Firstly, as to ....