The court emphasized that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are required to stand or fall on their own and subsequent explanations by way of affidavit(s) cannot be permitted to improve an order already passed by the Departmental Officer.

JUDGMENT

Soumitra Saikia, J. - Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, Finance (Taxation) for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company assailing the action of the respondent authorities and rejecting the refund applications filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay while filing the refund applications. It is the case of the petitioner that for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2010-11 assessments were completed and different amounts for different assessment years were determined as amounts paid is excess by way of TDS. The petitioner accordingly submitted refund applications to the respondent authorities, receipt of which, however were not acknowledged by the respondent authorities. Subsequently upon enquiry the petitioner company was informed that there was no record of any such applications filed/submitted by the petitioner company. The petitioner company therefore filed/submitted fresh refund applications. The same were however rejected on the ground that it was submitted beyond limit time prescribed under the AVAT Act 2003 and the Rules made thereunder.

3. For the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, under Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as AVAT ACT, 2003), several amounts were paid by the petitioner Company by way of taxes. Subsequently, it was noticed that for several years there were excess amounts paid into the State Exchequer by way of TDS. The petitioner Company regularly filed its monthly returns showing its monthly turnover as well as annual returns prescribed under the AVAT ACT, 2003 before the concerned jurisdictional assessing authority, namely the respondent No.3 herein. In the annual returns filed, the petitioner company had shown the amount of taxes paid in excess by deposits made through TDS for each assessment year.

4. In respect of the relevant assessment years, the amount of taxes due under the Act and the excess amount paid by way of TDS as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the writ petition are extracted here under:-

3. That for the Financial years 2007-08 to 2010-11, the petitioner Company has filed its monthly returns showing its monthly turnover as well as the annual returns prescribed under the Assam VAT ACT, 2003 before the jurisdictional assessing authority i.e. the respondent No.3 herein. In the said annual returns file, besides payment of taxes due under the Act, the petitioner company has further shown certain amount of tax paid in excess by way of TDS by the selling dealer for each assessment year. The following are the figures of payment of tax paid by the Petitioner and the amount paid in excess by way of TDS for each assessment year.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the excess amounts paid, the petitioner company filed refund applications in the prescribed Form-37 in terms of Section 50 of the AVAT ACT, 2003 read with Rule 29 of the Assam VAT Rules, 2005. The refund applications were stated to have been duly submitted before the concerned authority. However, the site representative of the petitioner, who had submitted the Refund Applications before the office of respondent no.3, did not forward the acknowledgement copy of the refund applications submitted to the petitioner's office. Thereafter, on 05.11.2015, when the representative of the petitioner visited the office of respondent no.3, he was informed that the refund applications filed were not available in the official records of respondent no.3. Accordingly, fresh applications for refund of taxes paid were submitte