Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 443 - KERALA HIGH COURTRecovery of tax - the petitioner, an assessee under the KVAT Act, was found entitled to refund for AY 2007-08; it was also found liable under Section 25(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17. As the amount due from it was more than the amount due to it, the assessing authority adjusted the amount to be refunded and, then, demanded the balance amount - Held that:- Section 89 of the act plainly reveals that if a dealer has paid tax more than what is due from him, he must have that excess amount refunded to him. Once an assessing authority receives an order from any appellate or revisional authority or any officer under subsection (5) of section 47, to refund tax or penalty to a dealer, he must comply with that - But the assessing authority has the power to adjust the amount due to be refunded towards the recovery of any amount due, on the date of adjustment, from the dealer. If the assessing authority delays refund without justification, the dealer may earn interest @10% p.a. Was the petitioner due to pay any amount to the Department “on the date of adjustment”? - Held that:- Section 31(1) declares that every dealer liable to pay tax for any return period shall pay the tax within such period as may be prescribed. Then, subsection (3) holds that the adjustment must be of “any amount due [from the dealer] on the date of adjustment.” The amount becoming due, I reckon, differs from the dealer’s liability to pay. The amount becomes due the moment it is ascertained by the assessing authority, say, through an order of assessment. But the dealer may have breathing time to pay that amount. So, meritless is the petitioner’s contention that the amount should not be adjusted until the time frame mentioned under Section 31 (3) gets exhausted. Petition dismissed as has no merit.
|