TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Charge (respondent No. 1) in respect of the period fourth quarter ending on March 31, 2007. Shri A.K. Dugar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in the demand notice in form 27 issued under memo No. 1908 dated June 26,2009 it was shown that a total amount of ₹ 7,86,330 had been shown as excess payment made by the petitioner for the assessment period four quarters ending on March 31, 2007. However, in the assessment order a contrary position was shown. In the assessment order passed by respondent No. 1 an amount of ₹ 7,36,524.13 was shown as payable by the petitioner. Shri Dugar, learned advocate, however does not agitate on this point as the same appears to be a simple clerical error apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the earlier period the assessing authority has been empowered to make adjustment of the outstanding dues against the excess amount arising out of the assessment. Balance amount, if any, after adjustment should be refunded. However, such adjustment should be specified in the refund adjustment order. If the amount of refund exceeds ₹ 20,000 the appropriate authority shall obtain prior approval of the Senior Joint Commissioner concerned who shall make his observation with 15 days from the date of receipt of the proposal. Proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 59 of the VAT Rules provides that where a dealer makes an application any time but ordinarily not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the refund adjustment order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal but no order has yet been passed. Respondents are awaiting the decision of this Tribunal. We fail to appreciate the reasons adduced by the respondents for withholding the refund. If the decision of this Tribunal in Case No. 844 of 2009 goes in favour of the petitioner the petitioner will be entitled to a refund in excess of the amount claimed in this petition. On the contrary, if the decision goes in favour of the respondents they will still be under obligation to refund the amount shown as excess payment in form 27. The reason therefore does not appear to be convincing. In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to refund ₹ 7,86,330 by September 30,2010. The petition is allowed in full. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
