Tvl.Sri.Venkkatachalapathy vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Held

The Court held that the reason set out in the impugned notice, which was the belated filing of Form W, could not be sustained. The Court referred to its previous decision in WP.No.28275 of 2016, which dealt with a similar issue. In that case, the Court had observed that a delay in filing Form W cannot stand in the way of considering a request for refund, particularly when the turnover relates to export turnover attracting zero rate and monthly returns (Form I) have been filed. The Court reasoned that Input Tax Credit provisions are beneficial, and the Act contemplates monthly returns where such claims can be made. Therefore, the mere delay in submission of Form W or its manual submission cannot be a ground to refuse to look into the refund application. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for refund without reference to the belated filing of Form W within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri.Venkkatachalpathy Spinning Mills Pvt., Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice dated 05.01.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T)-1, Rajapalayam, which rejected their refund request. The petitioner had submitted their refund request on 28.12.2017, along with Form W on 26.12.2017. The rejection was based on the belated filing of Form W. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing Form W should not be a bar to considering their refund request, citing previous High Court judgments. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, conceded that the issue was covered by prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the belated filing of Form W would be a bar for considering the petitioner's request for refund, under Section 18 of the TNVAT Act read with Rule 10(10) of the TNVAT Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a delay in filing Form W should not prevent the consideration of their refund claim, especially when their turnover relates to zero-rated export sales and they have filed Form I returns monthly. They relied on the High Court's decisions in R.K.Knits Vs. Assistant Commissioner(CT) (MAD) reported in (2015) 84 VST 521(Mad) and FIRST GARMENT MFG., CO.,(INDIA) Vs. Assistant Commissioner(MAD) reported in (2016) 88 VST 154(Mad), which held that delay in filing Form W cannot be a ground to reject a refund claim for export turnover. Respondents' Argument: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents fairly submitted that the issue involved in this case is covered by the aforementioned orders and therefore, the claim of the petitioner would be considered in light of those orders.