Back
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.VINOD KUMAR
KMC Constructions Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in not granting refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner for the tax period 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively, in a sum of Rs. 4,44,62,188/-, pursuant to the order dt. 18.02.2019, in T.A. No. 176 of 2016 passed by the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The petitioner contends that aggrieved by the order dt. 30.05.2016 of the 2nd respondent, passed in excise of revisional powers conferred under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as adopted by the State of Telangana (TVAT Act) (for short, 'the Act'), the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, numbered as T.A. No. 176 of 2016; that the said appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 18.02.2019, whereby the order of the revisional authority - 2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the enhanced rate of 5%, as introduced w.e.f. 15.09.2011, in respect of ongoing works contracts as against the rate of tax of 4% having opted to pay under the composition scheme provided under the Act, was set aside.
3. The petitioner
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 main legal point established is that the withholding of a refund under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires detailed and compelling reasons to be recorded in writing, and the exercis....
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....
Procedural violations in tax adjudication require rectification to uphold the rights to refunds and interests, emphasizing the need for jurisdiction and fair hearing in administrative processes.
No bar under Section 54(1) CGST Act on second refund application for inadvertently omitted invoice within prior quarterly period if filed within two-year limitation; technical rejections invalid, mat....
Public authorities must provide an opportunity to explain delays in tax refund claims before rejecting them as time barred.
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
