Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 252 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund - Bar of limitation - Change law not given retrospective effect - Refund of duty paid under mistake of law - Writ jurisdiction - Held that:- right to claim refund is a vested right and that even if it is held to be an existing right and not vested right, such a right cannot be taken away unless it is taken away by a statutory enactment expressly or by necessary implication. An amendment reducing the period of limitation takes effect prospectively unless it has retrospective effect by express terms or by necessary intendment. Accordingly such an amendment will apply to cases in which right to claim refund arose after the amendment and it cannot govern the cases where the right to claim refund has arisen prior to the date of amendment. When the petitioner sought to submit the application on 20 August 2012 claiming refund for the year 200910, the three years period of limitation had not yet expired as the same was to expire on 31 March 2013. In this view of the matter, the right which was vested in the petitioner or at least which was an existing right on the date of amendment on 21 April 2011, could not have been taken away without express terms or necessary intendment in the Amending Act. Having gone through the provisions of the Amending Act, as quoted hereinabove, we find that the amended section 51(7) of MVAT Act, 2002 reducing the period of limitation from 3 years to 18 months is clearly prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to claim refund within the limitation period of 3 years which was to expire on 31 March 2013. When the refund application was made on 20 August 2012, the respondent authority clearly erred in law in rejecting the refund application on the ground that it was time barred - Following decision of Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [1984 (4) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|