Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1639 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax100% EOU - Refund claim - Section 4-E of the TNGST Act 1959 - HELD THAT:- On reading Section 4-E, it is evident that the word used therein is 'unit' and not 'dealer'. As such, there is no doubt that a 100% EOU is entitled to the refund on satisfying the prescribed conditions. The use of the word 'unit' instead of the word 'dealer' is significant especially in the context of a statute wherein tax is ordinarily imposed on the dealer. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the two units of the Petitioner are 100% EOU’s. From the Registration certificate, it is evident that Rajapalayam Textiles and Rajapalayam Spintex are not separate legal entities but are branches/divisions of the dealer, Rajapalayam Mills Limited, in whose name the Registration Certificate was issued. If the meaning ascribed to the word 'unit' in the aforementioned dictionaries is applied and viewed in the factual context of the Registration Certificate and the Assessment Order, it becomes clear that the two units are constituents of the Petitioner. Whether the condition prescribed in Rule 23(2C) read with Form A-5 is satisfied in the instant case? - HELD THAT:- A fortiori, in the context of a refund application, the principle of substantial compliance would apply. If so applied, it is clear that the two 100% EOUs paid taxes at 2-4% on the purchases made by them and thereby substantially complied with the conditions under Section 4-E read with Rule 23 (2C) and Form A-5. Therefore, the claim for refund is valid and, consequently, the Impugned Order is liable to be quashed. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|