AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner seeks refund of tax for the year 2011-2012 amounting to Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with further interest thereon. 3. Petitioner is engaged in trading of vehicles and is registered with the Respondent-Tax Authority. 4. For the year 2010-2011, an assessment order was passed by Respondent No. 1 on 30th March 2015 demanding a sum of Rs. 17,76,93,422/-. The said order was challenged in appeal and on 28th February 2019, the Appellate Authority passed an order in appeal by which the demand was reduced to Rs. 14,00,74,890/-. 5. For the year 2011-2012, an assessment order was passed demanding a sum of Rs. 9,67,02,366/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, wherein it was informed to Petitioner that the requisite amount payable for the year 2010-2011 under the scheme is only Rs. 66,17,057/-. It seems that the requisite amount of Rs. 66,17,057/- is arrived at after adjusting the refund for the year 2011-2012 amounting to Rs. 10,69,89,606/- and post application made by Petitioner. 10. On 23rd May 2019, i.e., after Petitioner availing the benefit of the Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, Respondents issued a refund adjustment order under Rule 55 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ("MVAT Rules") informing Petitioner that refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012 will be adjusted towards the amount of tax due for the year 2010-2011. 11. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, there was no outstanding amount for the year 2010-2011 for making any adjustment of the refund for the year 2011-2012. Petitioner further submitted that pursuant to RTI application, Petitioner received information that the refund for the year 2011-2012 of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- was already approved by higher authorities on 10th May 2019 and on 14th May 2019. Therefore, Respondents were not justified subsequently to adjust the same against demand. Petitioner further submitted that the adjustment sought to be made is also contrary to Rule 60 of the MVAT Rules since the adjustment could be made against the demand of subsequent orders and not of the prior years. Petitioner, therefore, submitted that they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 10,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for the year 2011-2012 was already approved on 10th May 2019 and 14th May 2019 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Joint Commissioner of State Tax and the case records were transferred for further necessary action to complete the refund procedure. If that be so, then we fail to understand as to how on 23rd May 2019 an officer below the rank of approving authority could have adjusted the said refund against a demand for the year 2010-2011 which, as more particularly observed hereinabove, itself did not exist on the date of adjustment of refund. Therefore, even on this count, the refund adjustment order is required to be set aside. 16. There is no dispute that Petitioner's liability under the Settlement Scheme is Rs. 8,46,84,821....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordance with the law. Furthermore, on a reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. In the instant case, on a perusal of the defect notice it states that requisite amount payable is Rs. 66,17,057/-, whereas Petitioner has paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- which is excess payment and not short payment. Therefore, even on this count, defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. 18. Reliance placed by Respondents on Section 18 of the Settlement Scheme for not granting the refund is also misconceived. Section 18 provides that under no circumstances, shall the applicant be entitled to get refund of th....