9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and have impugned the common judgment and order dated July 1, 2014 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Third Bench, Mumbai arising out of respective appeals therein. 2. Heard Shri Vinay Sonpal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant and Shri P. V. Surte along with Shri S. P. Surte for the respondent at length. We have also perused record produced before us. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer in cotton yarn, hosiery fabrics, electronic goods, i.e., TV, air conditioners, made up articles of fabric, i.e., bedsheets, etc. The respondent holds certificate of entitlement during the period of assessment. The respondent submitted assessment statements before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolhapur, for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (in short, "MVAT Act"). That the respondent had filed application in form 501 for grant of refund under section 51 of the MVAT Act and provisional refund under section 51 of the MVAT Act has been granted to the respondent from time to time for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, but very late. The respondent contended that after filing of the returns and form 501, he was entitled to get refund within six months from the end of the year, succeeding the said year. He claims that on provisional refund interest on delayed refund under section 53(1) of the MVAT Act was not granted. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolhapur, neither granted interest on delayed refund nor took up assessment of the appellant since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein to pay the interest over delayed payment by calculating the period as was directed in the said order. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant herein was bound to pay interest on delayed provisional refund to the respondent herein as there was delay as contemplated under section 51(4) of the MVAT Act which was prevailing at the relevant time. 7. Shri Vinay Sonpal, learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the Appellate Tribunal has committed error in allowing the appeals, thereby holding that the period for refund as contemplated under section 51(4) of the MVAT Act as six months. He submitted that in view of the amended sub-section (4) of section 51, the Commissioner was entitled to refund under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amendment and it has no retrospective effect for its operation. 9. It is the settled position of law that the amendment of section or provision does not apply to proceedings commenced before amendment unless and until the Legislature is absolutely clear while applying a provision retrospectively. The plain reading of the amended section 51(4) of the MVAT Act clearly demonstrates that the said provision has come into effect on May 1, 2011 with prospective effect and the Legislature did not intend of its retrospectivity of the same. After a careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated July 1, 2014, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the provisions of sections 51, 52 and 53 of the MVAT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
