M/S Polyhydron PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., learned AGA for the respondent have appeared in person. Though the petition is listed today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.
The brief facts are these: M/s.Polyhydron Private Limited is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing hydraulic machines and has been filing returns relating to sales tax. During the fiscal year 2017-18 i.e., before the introduction of GST, the petitioner filed Form No.VAT100 before the respondent. During June 2017, the petitioner had a total turnover of Rs.10,75,05,766/- (Rupees Ten Crores Seventy- Five Lakhs Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Six only) on which the petitioner had paid the sales tax. As per the applicable laws in June 2017, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs.31,11,194/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Four only) having paid NC: 2024:KHC-D:11858 excess tax. It is said that while filing the audited statement of accounts under Section 31(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003 in form VAT240 for the period ending on 31.03.2018, the petitioner claimed the refund of excess input tax credit. The respondent did not process the claim of the petitioner for refund. Hence, the petitioner requested to process the refund for the year 2017-18 for the first quarter. After the receipt of the letter from the petitioner, the respondent issued an endorsement on 19.06.2023 by referring to form VAT100 stating that in the said form the petitioner has shown Rs.31,11,194/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four only) in box 4.10 and not in box 4.9 and has also referred to form VAT185. On receipt of the said endorsement dated 19.06.2023, the petitioner issued another letter dated:21.08.2023 whereby the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner has filed Form VAT240 and submitted that the petitioner has not availed any credit under the GST of the said amount. The respondent issued an endorsement on 30.08.2023 rejecting the claim for the refund made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner having left with no other efficacious and alternative NC: 2024:KHC-D:11858 remedy has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has not availed the one-time window that was provided by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S. FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD in SLP (C) NO.32709-32710/2018 and the guidelines issued by the respondent. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. Though several contentions were urged on the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, a direction is issued to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO-390 Belagavi to put up for the allotment of audit assignment for the period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 (2017-18) in case of M/s. Polyhydron Private Limited, Belagavi due to refund issue. A further direction is issued to the concerned NC: 2024:KHC-D:11858 Divisional Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admin) DGSTO – Belagavi Division, Belagavi for the issue of audit assignment in case of M/s. Polyhydron Private Limited, Belagavi vide TIN No.29410009147 for re-assessment order under audit for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 to the juri ictional audit officers after the re-assessment order concluded by the audit officer and also after the issuance of VAT Form-185 to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO-390 Belagavi. After the completion of the above process concerned Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO-390 Belagavi may issue a refund voucher for whatever amount issued in VAT Form-185. The authorities concerned should adhere to the Rules applicable i.e., rule 180(1-A) of the KVAT Rules, 2005. 4. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:19.06.2023 passed by the respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:ªÁvɸÀD/J¯ïfJ¸ïnN-390/ªÀÄ.¥Á./¨É/©- vide Annexure-D and the order dated:30.08.2023 passed by the respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:ªÁvɸÀD/J¯ïfJ¸ïnN-390/ªÀÄ.¥Á./¨É/©- vide Annexure-F are quashed. NC: 2024:KHC-D:11858
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.