Karnataka High Court
M/S Skf Boilers And Driers Pvt Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer on 11 June, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.18680/2013 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s. SKF Boilers and Driers Pvt. Ltd.,
No.129, Bannadka Belvai,
Moodabidri - 574 227
Mangalore
Represented by its Director - Commercial
Sri Ramdas Prabhu
Aged about 43 years
S/o Manunath V. Prabhu. ...Petitioner
(By Smt Vani H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Commercial Tax Officer
V S O - 291
Office of the Commercial Tax Officer
Moodbidri - 574 227
2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Finance
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, GA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
10.01.2013 ISSUED BY R1 REFUSING TO GRANT
REFUND FOR THE TAX PERIOD NOV, 2011 VIDE
ANNEX-K, ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though matter is listed in Preliminary Hearing 'B' Group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties it is taken up for final disposal, since it revolves around a short point namely consideration of application filed by petitioner for refund of tax.
2. Heard Smt. Vani H., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent-revenue.
3. Petitioner herein submitted an application on 17.12.2011 for issue of refund order in a sum of ` 48,96,159/- towards excess input of tax upto 3 November 2011. Subsequently, petitioner is said to have submitted dealer wise purchase statement on 24.02.2012 in relation to the input-tax rebate in the returns of turnover filed for the period and sought for refund from 2009-10 to 2011-12. In the meanwhile DCCT, Aduit-3 concluded reassessments for the periods falling under the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and demanded payment of taxes from petitioner. On the request made by petitioner to adjust the said demand against refund payable to petitioner. 1st respondent had called upon petitioner to furnish original purchase bills and undisputedly petitioner furnished the same. The authority which had concluded the reassessment vide communication dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure-E) sought information from 1st respondent since petitioner had sought set off against the tax dues for the years 2005- 06 & 2006-07 on the ground that applications for refund was pending. On 25.06.2012, an endorsement came to be issued to the petitioner intimating that on verification of entries of purchase and sales in the 4 website it was noticed that petitioner had not uploaded purchases and sales, as specified under circular dated 08.06.2011 and as such, petitioner was called upon to upload the purchases and sales details in the designated website of respondent department.
4. In reply, petitioner on 11.08.2012, Annexure-H, has intimated 1st respondent about the details of uploaded purchase and sales invoice in the respondent website from April 2009 to November 2011 and it was also intimated by petitioner to 1st respondent that details relating to certain past months were not being uploaded on account of website of respondent not allowing the same or in other words, it was not being uploaded which related to past months. On account of respondents not refunding the amount of excess input tax said to have been paid by petitioner despite submitting refund applications and representations and also furnishing details sought for, petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to adjudicate the application for refund of tax (excess input tax) and 5 refund the same with interest by quashing the endorsements dated 10.01.2013 Annexure-K and 03.09.2012 Annexure-J.
5. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent-revenue would submit that in view of statement filed by petitioner before respondent as per Annexure - H, being not in conformity with Form No.170, as contemplated under Rule 33(2) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, application for refund could not be proceeded for want of details and as such, if petitioner furnishes these details as contemplated under Rule 33(2), same would be examined and order would be passed on merits.
6. Smt Vani H., learned counsel for petitioner at the juncture would submit that petitioner would furnish the details of purchase as required under Rule 33(2) in Form No.170 and comply with the requirement of Circular issued by respondent-department bearing No.07/2011-12 dated 08.06.2011 and she also submits 6 that in the event of any of the details which are to be furnished by petitioner is not likely to be uploaded to the official website of respondent, petitioner may also be permitted to furnish the same manually to 1st respondent for its examination and scrutiny. Submissions made by learned advocates are placed on record. Petitioner is at liberty to furnish purchase details to the respondents in the prescribed Form No.170 as required under Rule 33(2) either by uploading the same to the official website of respondent or handover the same manually within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and 1st respondent shall adjudicate the refund application of petitioner within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of furnishing of said details. With these observations writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR