Back
SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. , Rep. By Its Assistant Manager – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Finance Taxation Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Soumitra Saikia, J.)
Heard Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Tax and Finance Department.
2. Since all these writ petitions are filed by the same writ petitioner, namely, M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. being aggrieved by non-refund of the excess tax amount paid by the petitioner for different assessment years, these 4 (four) writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. The brief facts of the cases are given herein below.
3. The writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.1430/2017 is directed against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati, whereby the refund claims made by the petitioner under the Assam Value Added Tax Act (AVAT), 2003 and Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 were rejected as being time barred. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at L&T house, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. The petitioner carries on the business of execution of works contract of various natures at different places within the country awarded by the various authorities of the Central
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 permitt....
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The court held that a refund application filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation, and the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any reject....
Point of law: the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding or de....
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
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
