TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C to A.G ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The claim of refund of Rs. 61,74,899/- deposited between the period December, 2014 to August, 2015 by the petitioner before the Respondent-Commercial Taxes Department, was declined by order dated 1st September, 2016 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 3 impugned herein on the ground that the application for refund was not maintainable. Learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal upheld the order of rejection by the impugned order dated 31st October, 2017 (Annexure-8) holding that in absence of any statutory provision under JVAT Act the learned JCCT had no jurisdiction to allow the refund application of the petitioner. Learned Tribunal at Para-6 observed that the receipt of the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... place within the State of Jharkhand, petitioner filed an application for refund under Section 52 of the Act. Petitioner had, in fact, deposited those amounts for continuity in business and to avoid coercive action. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that refund has been refused on the ground that petitioner is not a registered or unregistered dealer under JVAT Act and there is no provision under the Act to make such a refund. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that retention of the amount without any liability of tax would be in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. If such an amount is retained without the authority of law, petitioner is entitled to invoke the remedy of writ jurisdiction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son who is covered within the definition of "Dealer" and the person necessarily does not have to be registered under the Act for seeking refund which has been collected in excess of the amounts due under the Act. If the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax, then the entire amount deposited by him would be "in excess" of the amount due, to which petitioner was not liable, but yet had deposited on a mistaken basis. He submits that Calcutta High Court in such circumstances has held that the entirety of the amount paid would be in excess of the amount due from him under the Act. If the construction urged on behalf of the respondent is accepted, it would lead to illogical consequences because in an event if a person had paid tax say of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Commercial Taxes Tribunal. In substance, the counter affidavit states that the petitioner was not registered under JVAT Act, 2005 and there were no records with regard to assessment of tax with the concerned Urban Circle, Dhanbad, therefore, no excess demand notices were raised against him. As such, there were no provisions under the JVAT Act, 2005 for refund of tax to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, however, submits, on instructions, that in case this Court is inclined to interfere in the orders of rejection, the matter may be remitted to the concerned respondent no. 3, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admin), Ranchi, Jharkhand ( Respondent no. 3) for examining the claim of the petitioner, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of HMM Limited (Supra) that any amount paid by mistake or through ignorance of repeal Act deserves to be refunded as retention of such amount would be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. In the case of the petitioner admittedly there has been no assessment of tax liability till date. The claim of refund has been denied on the plea that there is no provision under the JVAT Act since the petitioner is not a registered dealer and no assessment proceedings have been held. Under the Scheme of JVAT Act, assessment proceedings can be held against dealers, who have failed to get themselves registered. However, no assessment can be made under Sections 37 or 38 after expiry of 5 years from the end of the tax period, to which the ass....