2019 (8) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The appellant filed return under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') with respect to the assessment year 2014-2015, as per Ext.P1, conceding a total tax liability of Rs. 25,81,274/-. They claimed input tax credit to the extent of Rs. 51,71,761/-. In the return, the appellant had shown a total tax credit of Rs. 52,13,765/- and claimed refund to the tune of Rs. 26,32,491/- on setting off the input credit. The appellant filed Ext.P2 application claiming refund of the excess input tax credit, as mentioned above. When the 1st respondent failed to consider the application for refund, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.33014....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e above said contention. Evidently the contention was not adverted to on its merits. Consequent to Ext.P6 order of assessment, the 1st respondent had rejected the claim for refund, through another proceedings issued as per Ext.P6(a). The appellant challenged Exts.P6 and P6(a) proceedings in the writ petition filed, mainly contending that those orders suffer from rank perversity and that the perversity of reasoning is manifold from the fact that the assessing authority has taken the claim for input tax credit as Rs. 2,69,27,728/-, despite the specific claim for input tax credit made is only to the tune of Rs. 51,71,761/-. 3. The learned single Judge while considering the writ petition found that, from the details exhibited in the accompan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge in Ext.P6 order and it is evident that there is total lack of application of mind and non-advertance to the contentions raised. Therefore it is argued that the impugned order ought to have been quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that, whether there exists any illegality or error in the revised assessment, is a question which need elaborate consideration based on factual aspects, including examination of the books of accounts of the appellant. Therefore there exist no special circumstances for permitting the appellant to bypass the appellate remedy, which is efficacious in nature. Learned counsel....