Remand required when tribunal fails to address rectification jurisdiction and misapplies VAT rules to advance tax refunds.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2026 Devan Ramachandran, J Loath as we are normally, we are left without any other option, but to order remand of all these matters to the learned Tribunal, for the reasons we will presently state.

2. There are broadly two issues in these cases: namely, (a) whether the assessee – petitioner was entitled to refund of the Advance Tax paid by them; and (b) if the rectification with respect to their original assessment, invoking Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules), is in order.

3. Sri. Anil .D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Aravind Sreekumar - appearing for petitioner in all these cases, pointed out that, out of the above, OTR 6 of 2026, OTR 8 of 2026 and OTR 9 of 2026 has been filed by his client challenging the orders of the learned Tribunal qua the orders of rectification; while OTR 7 of 2026, has been filed by them against the order of the learned Tribunal in a proceeding in which the Original Assessment itself was under challenge. He then added that, as far as OTR 10 of 2026, OTR 11 of 2026, and OTR 12 of 2026 are concerned, they are against the orders of the Tribunal upholding the appeals filed by the State against the Original Assessment order, thus effectively denying his client the benefit of refund or adjustment of the “excess” Advance Tax Paid.

4. The learned Senior Counsel then argued that, when it comes to the issues relating to the rectification of the Original Assessments, the impugned order of the Tribunal - which he pointed out was in common to all the seven cases – does not deal with it at all; while, on the issue of the entitlement of his client to the claimed excess Advance Tax, it denies relief solely on the ground that they did not make an application for the same, by filing Form 21 CC of the “Rules”. He contended that the afore form would have been liable to be filed by his client only if Rule 47A of the “Rules” was applicable; but predicated that it is not so because what they are claiming is not Input Tax Credit, but refund of Advance Tax paid in excess.

5. Sri.Anil D.Nair then called our attention to the impugned order, showing us that the learned Tribunal has entered into a holding – which he asserted was in error – that Rule 47 A of the “Rules” would apply, and hence that the failure of his client to have filed an application for refund under Rule 21 CC of the Rules denuded them the right to claim such benefit. He concluded, arguing that such findings are not only without basis, but are wholly untenable and contrary to the statutory mandate.

6. Smt.Jasmine – learned Government Pleader, in response, controverted the afore submissions, saying that there are binding Circulars covering the field, making it incumbent upon an assessee to file applications in Form 21 CC of the Rules, even in the case they apply for refund of the Advance Tax. She however, conceded that, going by Rule 47A of the “Rules”, it is the refund of Input Tax, which remains unadjusted at the end of the year, which can be claimed by a dealer by making the application under Form 21CC; but reiterated that, there are binding Circulars which make this applicable even in the case of Advance Tax. She then pointed out to Rule 67 A of the “Rules”, to say that, in any event, there can be no claim for refund of any Advance Tax because, the said Rule renders it ineluctable that what can be sought for by a dealer is only to have the same carried forward to the next assessment year. She prayed that, these appeals be therefore, dismissed.

7. As sa