9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 2. The appellant is a company duly registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appellant has submitted returns in Form VAT-100 within 20 days after the end of the preceding month under Section 35 of the Act. The returns are to be filed for each tax period and the tax period shall be one calendar month as prescribed in Rule 37 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules 2005. The appellant submitted monthly returns for the month of January, February and March 2008 on 19.02.2008, 20.03.2008 and 20.04.2008 respectively. In the returns he had claimed certain input tax credits as per Section 10 of the Act in accordance with the books of accounts maintained in the course of the business. Section 31(4) of Act, provides that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns. He also filed a revised annual statement in Form VAT-115 based on the revised returns filed on 30.12.2008. The additional claim of input tax rebate was made and the refund was sought on the basis of the said input tax credit. By an endorsement dated 31.12.2008 the ast respondent rejected the revised returns on the ground that the time limit for filing the revised returns for three tax periods has expired and therefore, the revised returns filed beyond six months cannot be accepted. Aggrieved by the said rejection, he preferred a writ petition. In the writ petition, he sought for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a Writ of Declaration or a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the time limit of six months provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns. Therefore, the revised return has to be necessarily beyond six months and beyond 9 months. Therefore, he submits the rejection of his request for refund of excess tax paid on the ground that returns is not filed within six months is ex-facie illegal. Therefore, either the aforesaid two provisions have to be read harmoniously or Section 35(4), which prescribes six months period is to be struck down as arbitrary. The learned single Judge before whom this argument was canvassed, has not considered this arguments. He has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to challenge the endorsement issued. If that endorsement is issued in accordance with law, there is noth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
