M/S Ess Pee Industrial Corporation vs. State Of Punjab And Ors
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the refund applications (Annexure P-1 Colly) and the letter dated 26.3.2018 (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law. This decision was to be made by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Furthermore, if the petitioner was found to be entitled to the refund, it was to be released within the next one month in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The specific amount of refund and interest, and the legal provisions governing the entitlement, were not decided by the Court in this order.
Facts
M/s ESS PEE Industrial Corporation (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to release its refund along with interest. The petitioner, registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, filed seven quarterly returns for the period from 1.7.2014 to 31.3.2016. After discharging its tax liability, the petitioner was entitled to an excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹61,59,658/-. The petitioner applied for this refund to respondent No.4, but received no response. Subsequently, by a letter dated 26.3.2018, the petitioner requested respondent No.3 to release the refund, but again, no action was taken. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of its refund along with interest, considering the delay in processing the refund applications and subsequent representations. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it had submitted refund applications (Annexure P-1 Colly) and a follow-up letter dated 26.3.2018 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.3, but no action had been taken on these requests. Therefore, a mandamus should be issued to compel the respondents to process and release the refund. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.
Sections Cited
Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-11140-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11140-2018 Date of Decision: 4.5.2018 M/s ESS PEE Industrial Corporation, Jalanahdar ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ.
In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release its refund along with interest.
The petitioner is registered under the provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner filed seven quarterly returns in form VAT-15 for the quarters commencing from 1.7.2014 to 31.3.2016. After discharging the tax liability in the said quarters, there was an excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of ` 61,59,658/-. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for grant of refund of ` 61,59,658/- for the period of 1.7.2014 to 31.3.2016 vide VAT- 29, VAT-15 and VAT-20 (Annexure P-1 Colly
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.