Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (1) TMI 508 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxInterpretation of statute - time limitation - Rejection of refund claim - no prescription of time limitation in the parent Act - striking down the rules as ultra vires. Whether rules can provide a period of limitation when there is no such prescription in the parent Act? - HELD THAT - It has been considered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of BHARAT BARREL DRUM MFG. CO. LTD. ANR. VERSUS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION 1971 (9) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Supreme Court delved into the question as to whether limitation affects substantive and procedural rights - it has been inter alia held that where the legislature intends to provide the period of limitation it specifically provides for the same in the main Act and does not leave it to the government under its delegated power. Since the Rule bars the claim of the Corporation the same can t be within the realm of procedure. It was also held that since such a provision affects substantive rights it must be dealt with the legislature itself and cannot be inferred from the rule making power unless provided for expressly. In the present case as well the right to refund gets extinguished by the time limit provided in the JVAT Rules. This certainly affects the substantive and statutory right of the petitioner to get refund to which it is guaranteed under Section 52 of the JVAT Act. Thus we hold that the refund application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation since Rule 19(2)(a) is de hors the provision of Section 52 of the JVAT Act. From scrutiny of Section 55 of the JVAT Act it would make it evident that interest would be levied for the period commencing 90 days after the application for refund. Thus the legislature has intended that Refund Application should be decided within a period of 90 days. In the present case the same has been given a complete go by - the action of the Respondents is unjust and arbitrary which seek to defeat legitimate claims of the petitioner. The impugned order has been rejected is hereby quashed and set-aside - Application disposed off.
|