TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue Added Tax and Central Sales Tax at the rates applicable to such products. For the month of April 2013, the authority passed a provisional assessment order assessing the tax at Rs. 31,75,00,000 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act) and Rs. 27,75,00,000.00 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act). For the month of May 2013, the assessing authority passed a provisional assessment order assessing the tax at Rs. 44,20,00,000.00 under VAT Act and Rs. 22,35,00,000.00 under Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the provisional assessment order, filed separate appeals under Section 55 of the U.P. VAT Act, which was, eventually, allowed by an order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease the bank guarantee in accordance with law. For facility, the order of Supreme Court dated 17.04.2014 is extracted hereunder: ?At the time of hearing of these petition, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), Commercial Tax has already been decided in its favour on 21st March, 2014. In the aforestated circumstances, the petitions have become infructuous. It would be open to the petitioner to recover the amount deposited by way of pre-deposit from the respondent authority. We are sure that the respondent authority shall pay the amount of pre-deposit and release the bank guarantee in accordance with law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court in revision directed the petitioner to deposit 10% in cash and furnish bank guarantee. Based on the said orders, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3,63,95,862.00. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Ist appellate authority by an order dated 21.03.2014 and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh assessment order where the matter is pending consideration. After remand by the Ist appellate authority, the petitioner filed an application for refund of Rs. 3,95,862.00 and for release of the bank guarantee. The appellate authority by an order dated 11.08.2014 rejected the application for refund but however, released the bank guarantee. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as considered. According to Mr. Tripathi the provision of Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is pari materia to the provision of Section 40 of the VAT Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that Section 40 of the VAT Act provides for a refund to the dealer for the amount of tax paid by him in excess to the amount due for him. For facility,sub clause (1) and sub clause(2) of Section 40 of the VAT Act, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, are extracted hereunder: 40 (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, the assessing authority shall in the manner prescribed, refund to the dealer an amount of tax, fee, or oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the date refund is made.? The Supreme Court in Hind Lamps (Supra) interpreted the expression ?found to be refundable? as an amount that is refundable as a result of adjudication. The Supreme Court held that there must be an order passed by the authority for refund of the amount and only then the amount becomes refundable to a dealer. The Supreme Court held as under: ?The expression used is ?found to be refundable?. In other words, it must be as a result of adjudication. The amount has to be found to be refundable. In the instant case, there is no such adjudication. Even otherwise, the power of adjustment lies with the authority under the statute. While granting refund, he has to first find out whether there is any amount which has to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led a rectification application contending that the outstanding amount payable for the assessment year 2010-11 was only Rs. 11,25,88,286.00 and there were no other outstanding demand for any assessment year and, therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 4,81,06,454.00 should be refunded. This rectification application was also rejected. The Special Counsel for the State admitted that only Rs. 11,25,88,286.00 was outstanding for the assessment year 2010-11 but contended that since no order of refund was passed by the appellate authority in the appeal of the petitioner, the respondents were not obliged to refund the amount under Section 40 of the VAT Act. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary that an order of refund is required to be pas....