News Update

After US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCore Sector loses steam in March; logs 5.2% growthTrump fined USD 9,000 for ignoring court’s gag orderNHPC to collaborate with Norwegian company for Floating Solar Energy TechnologyCT - Option of review cannot be utilised as a method of rehearing or appeal and there must be finality to a litigation: HCST - As agreement with foreign supplier was on C.I.F basis and it was foreign supplier who entered into an agreement with foreign shipping line for transportation of goods, hence appellant not being a service recipient was not liable to pay service tax on amount of ocean freight: CESTATOpenAI joins hands with FT to access content for training AI toolsCX - Entire chain, right from procurement of aluminium ingots from NALCO upto delivery of aluminium conductors, transaction was established and accepted by Settlement Commission, no scope for Adjudicating Authority to confirm demand of Cenvat credit: CESTATIndia’s oil import bill likely to come down to USD 100 bn in current fiscalCus - Warehousing - None of the provisions have been contravened or violated by appellants inasmuch as in respect of all B/Es, the activities were carried out with approval and necessary permission given by department as well as under supervision of Customs - goods not liable for confiscation/penalty: CESTAT7 Maoists including two women killed in police encounter in ChhattisgarhBaba Ramdev-promoted FMCG companies caught in a pickle over GST fraudsI-T- As per settled position in law, if let out property remains vacant during whole of relevant AY, then its ALV is to be taken as NIL: ITATUttarakhand Govt cancels manufacturing licence of 14 products of PatanjaliIMF okays USD 1.1 bn bail-out package for Pakistan3 police officers killed in shoot-out in CarolinaGaza protesters on Columbia Univ campus turn tin-eared to police warningsBus swings into gorge; 25 Peruvians killedI-T - Sale consideration received in cash in lieu of agreement of sale upon failure of deal, cannot be penalized u/s 271D: ITATBattle against cocaine cartel: 9 Colombian soldiers perish in copter crashI-T- Payment made by NSE to Core SGF is business expenditure allowed u/s 37(1): ITATICG, ATS Gujarat seize Indian fishing boat carrying 173 kg of narcotics9 killed as two vehicles ram into each other in Chhattisgarh
 
VAT - Whether refund payable can be denied by treating same as 'input tax credit', on very basis that assessee has opted for composition of tax, merely because such refund was shown as sum against entry of net tax credit in AY - NO: HC

By TIOL News Service

AHEMDABAD, AUG 07, 2016: THE Issue is - Whether refund payable to an assessee under VAT Act can be denied by treating the same as 'input tax credit', on the very basis that the assessee has opted for composition of tax, merely because such refund was shown as a sum against the entry of net tax credit in the assessment order. NO IS THE ANSWER.

Facts of the case:

The assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction work. For the A.Y 2006-07, the assessee had filed its return under Gujarat VAT Act claiming refund of Rs. 7.63 lacs. According to the assessee, such refund was not released on the premise that the same would be carried forward in the next year and would be adjusted towards the assessee's tax liability. However, for the A.Y 2007-08 also the assessee had claimed refund of Rs. 35.15 lacs which was also not granted by the department. Assessments for both the A.Ys became time barred. The right of the assessee to seek refund therefore crystallized. Despite this, since no refund was released, the assessee filed SCA which came to be disposed of by the High Court by an order recording the statement of the Government counsel that refund as payable to the assessee shall be released latest by 10.03.2013. In terms of such statement, the AO granted refund to the assessee as part of the order of assessment for the A.Y 2008-09. Case of the assessee was that, in such computer generated assessment order in pre-set format, there was no column for refund for the earlier years. The AO therefore showed the refund of Rs. 35,13,883/- against the clause pertaining to net tax credit. He also calculated a sum of Rs. 8,11,642/- as interest payable on such refund. The net refund payable thus became to Rs. 42,65,438/-. However, the assessee was not entirely satisfied. According to the assessee, a sum of Rs. 73,236/- remained unpaid and the interest was calculated from the date of the order of the High Court instead of from the date when the respective refunds became payable. The assessee therefore, preferred appeal against such order of the AO. Instead of examining these grievances, the Commissioner issued impugned notice seeking to take the assessment order of the year 2008-09 in suo motu revision denying refund of Rs. 42,65,438/- to the assessee on the ground that in the order of assessment, the assessee was granted tax credit of Rs. 35,13,383/- for the year 2007-08 which was not payable, since the assessee was covered by the composition tax regime and, therefore, was not entitled to any input tax credit.

After hearing the parties, the High Court has held that,

++ it is seen that the assessee had been pressing hard for release of the refunds which arose in A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08. Before the High Court, the department made a statement that the refunds, as payable, would be released. These refunds were released by the AO while passing order of assessment for the year 2008-09. Simply because such assessment orders are computer generated and would have specific boxes containing specific details and which did not have any entry for refund for past A.Ys, he was compelled to show the sum of Rs. 35,13,883/- against the entry of net tax credit. This method adopted by the AO would not change the true character of the said sum payable to the assessee. It was and remained a refund due and payable. The sum of Rs. 8,11,642/- shown by way of interest of such refund also, therefore, had a direct co-relation to the assessee's claim of refund of the past excess taxes paid to the department.

++ the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, therefore, committed a serious error in treating such refund as input tax credit claimed by the assessee. It is true that the assessee has opted for composition of tax and, in such situation, would not be entitled to claim any input tax credit. However, when the assessee had not in fact claimed any such credit and the sum of Rs. 35,13,883/- shown in the order of assessment for the year 2008-09 was in fact the refund of the earlier years, the very basis for the Deputy Commissioner to issue impugned notice would disappear. Such notice is, therefore, required to be quashed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1662-HC-AHM-VAT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.