Emc Limited, Rep. By Its vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the respondent was obligated to issue the refund voucher for the excess tax payment. The Court referred to Section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, which mandates the refund of excess amounts paid by an assessee within ninety days of the assessment or revision order. It also stipulates that if the refund is delayed beyond ninety days, interest is payable. The Court noted that the respondent, in their revision order dated June 18, 2018, had admitted the excess payment of Rs.1,95,19,221/- by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14 and had issued a refund order in Form-P. Since the petitioner was not in arrears and urgently needed the funds, the Court found it appropriate to direct the respondent to issue the refund voucher. The Court directed the respondent to issue the refund voucher within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.EMC Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), to issue a refund voucher for an excess tax payment of Rs.1,95,19,221/-. This excess payment was determined by the respondent in a revision order dated June 18, 2018, for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner, a civil contractor, stated that the respondent had acknowledged the excess payment after considering eligible input tax credit and tax deducted at source certificates. Despite the respondent issuing a refund order in Form-P, the refund voucher had not been issued. The petitioner asserted they were not in arrears and urgently needed the funds, having made several unsuccessful representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is legally obligated to issue a refund voucher for the excess tax payment of Rs.1,95,19,221/- as determined in the revision order dated June 18, 2018, for the assessment year 2013-14, considering the provisions of Section 42(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent's revision order dated June 18, 2018, clearly established an excess tax payment of Rs.1,95,19,221/- for the assessment year 2013-14. They argued that the respondent was duty-bound to issue the refund voucher as per the law, especially since the petitioner was not in arrears and urgently required the funds. They relied on the fact that the respondent had already issued a refund order in Form-P, acknowledging the excess payment. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the issuance of the refund voucher in the judgment. The court noted that the respondent had admitted the excess payment in their revision order.