Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hazarilal Versus State of MP & others

2016 (9) TMI 1159 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Demand of input tax rebate - cancellation of refund of input tax credit - Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - edible oil - whether demand of input tax credit refunded earlier justified? - Held that: - the proper course in construing revenue Acts is to give a fair and reasonable construction to their language without leaning to one side or the other but keeping in mind that no tax can be imposed without words clearly showing an intention to lay the burden and that equi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iolation of principle of natural justice. The impugned order dated 10.1.2012 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as from perusal of the notice, Annexure P/4, dated 20.11.2009, it is found that the order has been passed on the grounds de hors the grounds mentioned in the notice dated 20.11.2009. In other words, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. - On perusal of the proviso to Section 14(3) of the Act, it is evident that the words "from the clos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in view of proviso to section 14(3) of the Act. - Demand of input tax credit not sustainable - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 3907/2012 - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - Alok Aradhe And Anand Pathak, JJ. For the Petitioner : Pawan Dwivedi For the Respondent : Amit Bansal ORDER Alok Aradhe, J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich is registered as dealer under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner firm deals with in the business of purchase and sale of edible oil within the State of Madhya Pradesh and is also engaged in interstate trade and commerce. The dispute in the instant petition pertains to the financial year from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. The assessing authority assessed the return of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 and after assessment, input tax r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e amount of input tax rebate the sanction was also accorded by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Gwalior vide order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P/3). After refund of the amount, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the order granting amount of refund of input tax rebate be not cancelled. 3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner engaged the counsel, who did not appear before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, who passed an order, pursuant to which a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order of demand, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax passed the impugned order dated 10.1.2012. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Section 14(3) of the Act submitted that in view of proviso to Section 14(3) of the Act, the order of refund of input tax rebate was rightly passed by the authorities as the same was not adjusted after close of two financial years. Learned counsel for the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Tax has no power to review his own order. It is further submitted that the principle of strict construction has to be applied in cases of taxing statute. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 29.1.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6318/2011 (M/s Shri Parag Edible Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of MP). Lastly, it is urged that the show cause notice has been issued on one ground whereas the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial Tax. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that the proper course in construing revenue Acts is to give a fair and reasonable construction to their language without leaning to one side or the other but keeping in mind that no tax can be imposed without words clearly showing an intention to lay the burden and that equitable construction of the words is not permissible. See, Ormond Investment Co. vs. Betts (1928) AC 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Joseph Vilangandan vs. Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others, AIR 1978 SC 930, and Thahira Haris vs. Govt. of Karnataka (2009) 11 SCC 438. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(z)(b-1) as well as Section 14(3) of the Act reads as under:- "Section 2(z)(b-1) - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s unadjusted even after two years from the close of relevant financial year, shall be granted by way of refund." From perusal of the proviso to Section 14(3) of the Act, it is evident that the words "from the close of relevant financial year" are used instead of the words "subsequent years". In the instant case, the refund of the amount of input tax rebate relates to the assessment year 2006-2007. The assessment was made in respect of the aforesaid year by an order dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version