TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oreign countries. The respondent rejected the claim on the ground that form W was filed belatedly and was in violation of section 19(18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with rule 10(10)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. The petitioner states that during 2006-07 and 2007-08, it purchased raw materials locally form registered dealers and used the same for manufacture of cotton knitted fabrics. These were exported to foreign countries. Under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, such export sales are treated as zero rating sales. As per section 19(17) of the said Act, if the input-tax credit determined by the assessing authority for a year exceeds the tax liability for that year, the excess m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from local or inter-State sale and in the event of there being no local or inter-State sale for an exporter, the assessee could file a refund claim before the officer, which should be disposed of by the assessing officer within ninety days. The petitioner states that the assessee could claim adjustment/refund even without going in for filing of form W, but in the monthly returns in form I. Thus the claim of the respondent that the petitioner had not filed the refund claim within 180 days form the date of accrual of the credit is contrary to the provisions contained in section 18 of the Act. The petitioner states that the actual claim of refund for the period January to March, 2007 comes to Rs. 11,69,954.36 and that the respondent had passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t provided for carrying forward of excess input-tax credit. Considering the fact that the petitioner has claimed 100 per cent export turnover, the claim of the petitioner now made is beyond the statutory time of 180 days from the date of credit of input-tax credit. In the absence of any particulars, it would not be justifiable for the assessee to claim refund. In any event, considering the time-limit fixed under the Act, the petitioner's prayer could not be granted. It is seen that the first respondent herein passed an order on March 30, 2009, rejecting the claim of the assessee, on the ground that the claim was made beyond the period of 180 days, that the assessee had not filed any objection to the notice issued dated September 19, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is an 100 per cent export unit; hence, entitled to claim refund of input-tax credit. The only claim of the Revenue herein is that, in so making the claim, the petitioner filed form W as per rule 11(2), which is a specific provision on a refund claim. A perusal of rule 11 shows that the officer has to issue the refund of amount as specified in form P, within ninety days from the date of service of the said form, failing which, the officer has to pay the interest at the prescribed rate. As per sub-rule (2) to rule 11, the refund claim under form W is applicable to cases where a dealer claims refund under section 18(1) along with copies of invoices or bills of related purchases and the claim should be made within 180 days from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... overlooked by the officer, to say that by reason of form W filed belatedly, the assessee is not entitled to have the refund passed. On the specific query thus made to the Revenue as to whether the monthly returns have not been taken up for consideration, it is informed that as of today, the Revenue is yet to take up the monthly returns for assessment. Section 22 prescribes the procedure laid down under the Act for the purpose of passing an order on the returns filed. Sub-section (1) of section 22 states that the assessment in respect of a dealer shall be on the basis of a return submitted in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. Sub-section (2) states that where the returns are accompanied by proof of payment of tax and the ....