2020 (12) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e business of execution of work contracts. In the course of execution of various work contracts, deduction of tax at source was made from the running bills of the petitioner. The petitioner had certain disputes with respect to the demand notices issued by the department concerning the petitioner's Value Added Tax liability for the assessment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011- 2012. The High Court disposed of the petitions by a judgment dated 9th October, 2013 pursuant to which the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order of assessment dated 12th February, 2014. This order was common for all the concerned assessment years. The petitioner preferred revision petitions before the revisional authority which were disposed of by a commo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1188741.42 Total Tax payable TDS certificates 2898526.95   3065701.37   Less ITC allowed 1533293   1299255.00   Balance to be paid 466573.05 (Excess) 60613.37   Add penalty U/S 25(4) 10000   10000   Total amount to be paid 456573.05 (Excess) 70613.37   Round off 456573 (Excess) 70613/-   Issue demand notices in form XV accordingly for the years 2008-09 and 2011-12. No need to issue demand notice for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and excess amount to be adjusted in the future returns. The dealer deposited Rs. 400000 + 194984 + 201000 + 10112/- as pre-requisite money against the years under assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In our opinion, the Assessing Officer committed a serious error in providing for adjustment of the excess tax against the demands for the later years. We may recall, while framing fresh assessments, the Assessing Officer found that the petitioner had paid certain excess tax in two of the four years concerned. In the other two years, where the tax was payable he raised a demand and we are told that such tax was also paid by the petitioner. For the years 2009-2010 and 2010-11, therefore, where the petitioner had admittedly suffered excess tax deduction at source as compared to his tax liability and thereafter deposited further amounts by way of pre-deposit for maintaining his revision petitions, he was entitled to refund thereof. Under sub-s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s granted. The said portion of the impugned order was thus wholly illegal. If the petitioner is right in pointing out that there were no further assessments pending and that there was no further possibility of tax liability arising, this order would operate in depriving the petitioner of the refund in perpetuity. [7] It is true that the TVAT Rules provide for a mechanism for grant of refund. In particular, Rule 35 requires the registered dealer to file a refund application before the concerned authority in prescribed manner. sub-rule (4) of Rule 35 prescribes a time limit for making such an application for refund. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer himself while framing fresh assessments had declared that the petitioner ....