Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 426 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxDenial of refund claim - Reduction of entry tax - presumption for unjust enrichment - Denial on the premise of explanation added to Notification No. A-3-80-98-ST-V (49) dated 4.5.1999 to deny the refund to tax paid at higer rate - Held that:- The Explanation attached to Notification dated 4.5.1999, or for that mater the Notification dated 5.7.1999, which states that the amount shall not be refunded in any case on the basis that dealer had filed the tax at a higher rate, results in invidious discrimination towards those who have paid the tax at a higher rate, like the appellants, when compared with that category of the persons who were defaulters and have now been allowed to pay the tax at the rate of 1% for the relevant period. There is no basis for creating these two classes and there is no rationale behind it which would have any causal connection with the objective sought to be achieved. It would be pertinent to mention that on repeated query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the respondents, he could not explain or show from any material on record as to what led the authorities to provide such an Explanation. While adding Explanation given in [2008 (11) TMI 387 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the Government had kept in mind the principle of unjust enrichment. Presumably because of this reason, the High Court also referred to the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (1992 (10) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA). However, on such a presumption alone, there cannot be any justification for adding the Explanation of the nature mentioned above. In order to determine as to whether a particular dealer is in fact entitled to refund or not, the Government can go into the issue of unjust enrichment while considering his application for refund. That would depend on the facts of each case. It cannot be presumed that the burden was positively passed on to the buyers by these dealers and, therefore, they are not entitled to refund. - impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 4.5.1999 and 5.7.1999 are unconstitutional - Decided in favour of assessee.
|