Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (9) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt dated 12th January, 2021 and also suffers from lack of proper analysis of the provisions of the scheme. While disposing of the writ petition by the said order dated 12th January, 2021 we had made certain significant observations - the purpose was to allow the authority to examine the facts more minutely expecting that if the petitioner was prevented from making application for refund in time because a department of the government did not provide him requisite certificates, such delay would be condoned. The authority shall examine the petitioner s refund applications on merits and dispose of the same within two month from today - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) No. 343 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, both passed on 25th June, 2020 on the sole ground that the claims were submitted after expiry of two years from the period to which the claims related. The petitioner, thereupon, approached the District Industrial Centre under a communication dated 13.07.2020 and made out grounds why it was not able to apply for the subsidy earlier. In such application the petitioner had projected a case that in support of its claims the petitioner had to produce the certificate of payment of taxes by the VAT authority which the petitioner, though had applied in time, was not provided by the said authority for a long period of time despite reminders. This application was not accepted by the District Industrial Centre upon which the petitioner filed W.P( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay in making the same. Surely one department of the Government cannot cite the reason of another department not acting promptly enough to deny the benefit declared by the Government under the scheme. Further it may be true that the petitioner had not explained such reasons in the applications for refund. However, when the petitioner made a detailed further submission in writing to the authority explaining the reasons which prevented him from making application within time, the same ought to have been examined in the correct factual context. Thus, both the objections of the respondents that the scheme does not envisage extension of time for making application for refund and that the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... grant of subsidy on the ground of delay. In this order he observed that the scheme envisages a period of two years for making the claims. Referring to the petitioner s inability to obtain VAT paid certificates from the department, he observed that the petitioner should have annexed the supporting bills, vouchers, certificates in place of VAT certificates and at least should have approached the DIC by citing the difficulties being faced in getting the certificates within two years and in such a case, the matter would have been considered valid. Since the petitioner did not do these things, in the opinion of respondent No.5, his applications could not be entertained. He further observed that the department is not empowered to relax the time s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... direction ignoring the observations of the Court. As noted, his first stand was that the scheme does not envisage power of condonation. The Court had asked him to consider certain aspects highlighted in the order and it was not for him to hold that the scheme did not envisage accepting delayed applications even if genuine grounds are made out. His second ground was that the petitioner could have made the application without tax paid certificates which is plainly contrary to the materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner correctly pointed out that in the proforma in which a claimant had to make the claim, required such certificates to be annexed. His next ground was that the petitioner should have produced other documents and r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates