Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, Niral R. Mehta, JJ.
R N Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 2303 of 2024
Decided On : 04-04-2024
Interest Refund - VAT Act - Section 38 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act, which entitles a dealer to receive simple interest on the amount of tax refund from the date immediately following the closure of the accounting year to the date of payment of the refund. The court emphasized that the interest starts running from the date immediately following the accounting year, and the transfer of the amount to the electronic credit ledger does not negate the entitlement to interest. The court also highlighted that the respondent authority's revision of the refund payment order without reference to the revisional proceedings under section 75 of the VAT Act was not in accordance with the law. The court directed the respondent authorities to refund the balance amount of interest as per the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a chemical manufacturing company, sought a refund of unutilized input tax credit under the VAT Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the refund claim, leading to an appeal and subsequent dispute over the calculation of interest on the refund amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to receive interest on the refund amount as per the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act. The court also held that the respondent authority's revision of the refund payment order without following the prescribed procedures was not in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation and entitlement of interest on the refund amount under section 38 of the VAT Act. Additionally, the court addressed the validity of the respondent authority's revision of the refund payment order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 38 of the VAT Act, emphasizing the entitlement of the dealer to receive interest on the refund amount from the date immediately following the closure of the accounting year. The court also considered the procedural requirements for revising the refund payment order under the VAT Act.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authorities to refund the balance amount of interest within a specified period, emphasizing compliance with the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act.
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna for the respondent-State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Having regard to the controversy narrated in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
A1. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the revised refund payment order (Annexed at Annexure H) and the original refund payment order (Annexed at Annexure E) may please be ordered to be restored as well as fully executed and implemented.”
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1 The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals was earlier registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘VAT’ Act’).
5.2 On coming into force of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 [‘GST Act’ for short], the petitioner carried forward the un-utilized input tax credit under section 140 of the GST Act as transitional tax credit in the electronic ledger to be maintained as per the provision of the GST Act.
5.3 On advice given by the auditor of the petitioner that there was no mechanism of claiming refund of excess input tax credit as the petitioner is SEZ Unit under the GST Act and such refund is required to be claimed under the VAT Act, the petitioner filed Form DRC-03 for reversal of the transitional tax credit under the GST Act and claimed the refund of the excess tax credit in the audit assessment under the VAT Act for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017.
6. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to such refund as the petitioner has already availed transitional tax credit under section 140 of the GST act and therefore, on voluntary reversal of such credit, the petitioner could not have been granted the refund under the provisions of the VAT Act.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who, by order dated 22.05.2023, allowed the appeal granting refund on unutilized input tax credit in the electronic ledger which was reversed by the petitioner.
8. The petitioner on receipt of the order of the appeal, preferred an application before the Assessing Officer requesting for release of the refund along with interest to be calculated as per the provision of the 38 of the Act
9. On receipt of such application, the Assessing Officer passed the order of refund along with interest from 01.07.2017 till the date of the order passed by the Commissioner i.e. 22.05.2023 and passed the refund payment order on 31.07.2023 granting refund of Rs. 57,32,306/- after calculating the interest upon the refund of Rs. 42,34,894/- granted by the appellate authority.
10. However, to shock and surprise of the petitioner, the refund of only Rs. 42,48,50,984/- was granted and there was a shortfall of Rs. 8,81,322/- towards the interest amount. The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- authority could not have revised the refund payment order once the same is issued under the provisions of the VAT Act. It was submitted that the petitioner has never utilized the input tax credit which was transfer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a dealer to receive interest on the refund amount as per the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act, and the requirement for th....
Provision of law providing for interest on delayed payment of refund would apply to only those cases that fall under the purview of section 40(1) of the VAT Act and to no other. That is the plain eff....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as calculated by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent, and is also entitled to interest durin....
The main legal point established is that the refund under the DVAT Act should be processed within the stipulated period, and interest is payable from the date the refund was due to be paid.
Interest on wrongly availed input tax credit is payable only when the electronic credit ledger balance falls below the amount wrongly availed, as clarified by amended provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to interest on a refunded amount accrues to the assessee on the date specified in Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of the Delhi Value Added Tax ....
State authorities are mandatorily required to pay interest on delayed tax refunds at the prescribed rate once the statutory limit for processing passes. Procedural failures in notification or record-....
In tax matters, entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, including on interest accrued, is affirmed, highlighting the principle that overdue amounts accrue additional interest.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
