9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2015 to 30.06.2015. The petitioner had filed a return initially claiming a refund of only Rs. 4 lacs. Claiming that this was due to calculation errors on its part, the petitioner on 03.11.2015 filed a revised return. The petitioner contends that it committed an error even in the revised return by considering the output liability to be taxable at 12.5% instead of at 4%. The petitioner, therefore, on 06.11.2015 filed an application pointing out this mistake and seeking a correction in respect thereof. The application was initially forwarded to the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority-respondent No.2, who in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Panipat. It was further forwarded to the Excise & Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.2 would have been entitled to be considered for a provisional refund of Rs. 85,56,547/-. However, the amount of provisional refund was limited to Rs. 39 lacs, apparently only on the basis of the claim allegedly made in VAT-A4. The impugned order states:- "(-) Rolled over in the interest of revenue & not to exceed claim made in VAT A-4 & Returns 4656547-00 Excess 3900000-00 Rs. 39,000,00 to be refunded provisionally." 5. Even assuming the grant of provisional refund is not mandatory, an assessee is entitled to have his application for provisional refund under section 20(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 decided on a consideration of relevant facts and on a reasonable and fair basis. Section 20(2) does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No.2 shall pass a fresh order pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 04.04.2016 for a provisional refund after taking into consideration the application for refund dated 06.11.2015 which is in the sum of Rs. 83,04,021/-. Although the impugned order computes the refund at Rs. 85,56,547/-, we have refrained from passing a mandatory order directing the respondents to refund the balance amount also at the provisional stage in the event of there being any other circumstances which prevents the petitioner from being paid the entire amount towards provisional refund. It is clarified that the mere fact that the return and the revised return contain the alleged error would not be a ground for rejecting the same. ii) The second res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
