2021 (3) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected. The refund claim has been rejected by the respondent on the following grounds:- "i. The delay of six years on part of the assessee to apply for refund. ii. Filing of audit report after finalization of the account without claiming deductions. iii. Inaction on part of the assessee to claim deductions of sales return from the taxable turnover despite knowing that goods are placed under exempted category from 01.04.2012. iv. The excess tax was not determined in the return and self-assessment was accepted u/s 37 of the J&K VAT Act, 2005." 2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Mr. K.D.S.Kotwal, learned Dy. AG....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012. The dealer, however, did not show any deduction on account of sales returned in the 4th quarter 2011-12 return despite the fact that the goods sold had been allegedly received back before filing of the return. It is on merits as well as on account of delay and other allied reasons, the claim for refund of the VAT paid by the petitioner has been rejected. The case for refund has been process on the application of the petitioner and all its pleas raised in the application have been dealt with in the impugned order. 7. The impugned order, as is apparent from its bare reading, is speaking one and spells out reasons for the decision. The reasons may be good or bad but the same can only be made subject matter of challenge in an appeal befor....