month of March 2009 itself. The appellant
also claimed a refund of tax paid on purchases in terms of Rule
78 of the MVAT Rules ... February
2006 to 1st March 2006 and accordingly, the respondent
granted provisional refund to the appellant amounting to
Rs.5,65,39,588/-. Perusal
confirming addition at Rs.24,82,241/- on
account of VAT refund.
4. The addition made ... confirmed by CIT(A) on
account of VAT refund is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive when the
assessee has paid VAT and refund of the same
Toners, Developers of the said Multi-Function Printers;
iii. Inclusion of the refundable security deposit in the value
upon which sales tax is payable ... This
was also determined at 12.5%. The second respondent held that
the refundable security deposit taken by the appellant from the
customers at the time
Rule 55 of the MVAT Rules. Consequently,
the petitioner applied for refund of excess input tax credit
amounting to Rs.2,06,51,993/- through ... respondents.
22. In order to verify correctness of the claim of refund, notice
dated 1st June, 2015 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
Sales
mvxa-17-18.doc
authority, to grant the refund of Rs.7,61,906/- due to
Appellant as per returns under the MVAT ... respect of the
same period and adjust the aforesaid refund against the CST
payable by the Appellant
Section
16(6A) , he could not claim set-off or refund of the input MVAT
collected from him. Furthermore, he would be liable ... MVAT Act , he is not entitled to input tax credit or refund
of tax paid on purchases of goods covered by the MVAT Act , since
involved in trade circular
transaction (as per record availability with). Part refund granted at
Rs. 683995/- has been withdrawn. Hence, total allowed ... including interest of
Rs. 519836/- on wrong refund granted). Also penalty is levied u/S.
29(3) at Rs. 6551199/- because of wrong ITC claim
order / communication dated 30th May, 2016 has rejected the
petitioner's refund application relating to the period 2008-09 as time
barred under ... appealable order.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the refund which is due to him is
being unfairly rejected. Therefore, in these circumstances
3I Infotech Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Mumbai-Ii on 18 September, 2018
IN
Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai vs Ito 19(2)(3), Mumbai on 20 June, 2018
आयकर
