M/S Sam (INDIA) Builtwell PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Held
The Court held that respondent No. 2 was obligated to decide the refund applications submitted by the petitioner. The Court directed respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the applications dated October 3, 2016, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Furthermore, if the petitioner was found entitled to the refund amount, it was to be released within the next one month, in accordance with law. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s SAM (India) Builtwell Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 (an authority of the State of Punjab) to decide their refund applications dated October 3, 2016. The petitioner, engaged in construction, claimed excess input tax credit for the periods 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to VAT paid on inputs, deduction of Works Contract Tax (WCT) by contractees, and Entry Tax. For 2013-14, the petitioner's output liability was approximately ₹1,79,05,253/-, while total input tax credit was ₹2,32,90,450/-, resulting in an excess payment of ₹53,85,197/-. For 2014-15, output tax liability was ₹5,34,66,496/-, and eligible input tax credit was ₹8,23,05,418/-, leading to an excess payment of ₹2,88,38,922/-. Despite submitting refund applications, no action was taken by the respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent No. 2 is obligated to decide the refund applications submitted by the petitioner dated October 3, 2016, in accordance with law? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they had submitted refund applications to respondent No. 2, but no action had been taken thereon, necessitating the present writ petition for a direction to decide these applications. The respondent's arguments were not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-17067-2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-17067-2017
Date of Decision: 2.8.2017 M/s SAM (India) Builtwell Pvt. Ltd., Mohali ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
By way of instant 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 respondent No.2 to decide the refund applications dated 3.10.2016 (Annexures P-2 and P-4, respectively).
The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction. For the purpose of construction activities, the petitioner was required to purchase a number of inputs. During the period 2013-14 and 2014-15, it purchased duty paid inputs, i.e. paid tax at the time of purchase of inputs. The contractee deducted Works Contract Tax (WCT). The payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) at the time of purchase of inputs and deduction of WCT @ 6% resulted into excess inputs tax credit than output liability. During 2013-14, the pe
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.