TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r raised a debit note on July 31, 2006. It is also not in dispute that promptly the assessee has paid the difference in tax, i.e., he paid the difference of tax in July 2006. It is also not in dispute that the supplier who received the same has remitted the same to the Department in July 2006. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim refund of input tax in July 2006. However, he has put forth the claim six months, thereafter. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, if he had put forth the claim in July 2006, the amount due to the assessee by way of refund was ₹ 1,36,837. Because the claim was made in December 2006, the amount due to him is ₹ 1,04,375. The Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order and allowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advice of a tax consultant, the assessee paid the said tax. Thereafter, he claimed the tax rebate of ₹ 1,40,228 in the VAT return filed for December 2006. During the audit of the accounts of the assessee, reassessment order was passed, where a claim for input-tax rebate to the extent of ₹ 1,40,228 has been disallowed. Consequently, a tax of ₹ 98,927 was imposed in addition to ₹ 16,076 and ₹ 9,893 towards penalty. A demand notice dated March 25, 2008 came to be issued. The assessee challenged the said judgment before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority held that the assessee should have claimed the said rebate in the tax return for the tax period July 2006 when it received the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess tax of ₹ 1,04,375 which was refundable to it in respect of the tax period December 2006. Therefore, the impugned levy of tax, penalty and interest in respect of December 2006 was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. The learned Government Advocate assailing the impugned order contends that when the debit note was raised on July 31, 2006, the assessee should have claimed refund of input tax during the said period only. However, it is claimed in December 2006. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the refund of input tax and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that section 30(3) on which reliance is placed makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has paid the money and he can put forth the claim for refund. The delay in putting forth the claim for refund does not in any way affect his right to claim the said amount, which is legitimately due to him under Act nor it amounts to contravention and resulting in liability to pay tax, interest and penalty as sought to be levied by the assessing authority. The entire approach of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority is contrary to law and runs counter to the spirit of the Act. The Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order and allowing refund of input tax to the assessee to which he is legitimately entitled to under the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
