M/S Va Tech Wabag LTD. vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the rejection order dated December 9, 2016, and the subsequent communication dated December 17, 2016, were unsustainable. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes had not adequately addressed the issue of whether the delay in filing the refund applications ought to be condoned, despite the proviso to Rule 29(1)(a) of the AVAT Rules, 2005, which allows the Prescribed Authority to entertain applications filed after the 180-day period if sufficient cause is shown. The Court noted that the impugned order lacked reference to the refund application, relevant assessment orders, or any inquiry made by the department to ascertain the petitioner's claim of having filed the applications. Furthermore, the Court held that the reasons provided in the affidavit filed by the department in support of the impugned order could not be used to supplement or validate the order, citing the principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill. The matter was remanded back to the respondent authorities for re-decision on the grant of refund, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court.

Facts

M/s Va Tech Wabag Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its refund applications for excess tax paid as TDS for assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11 under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (AVAT Act). The petitioner claimed to have initially submitted refund applications, but these were not acknowledged and later reported as not found in official records. Fresh applications were submitted on November 5, 2015. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (respondent No. 3) rejected these applications on December 9, 2016, citing that they were filed beyond the prescribed 180-day limit from the date of assessment. The petitioner argued that the initial applications were filed within time, and the delay in fresh applications was due to circumstances beyond their control. The respondent authorities contended that the applications were indeed filed late and lacked sufficient justification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's refund applications by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes was justified on the ground of being filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 50 of the AVAT Act, 2003, read with Rule 29 of the Assam VAT Rules, 2005? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the initial refund applications were filed within the prescribed time, and the subsequent delay in filing fresh applications was due to the loss of records by the respondent authorities. They argued that even if there was a delay, the proviso to Rule 29(1)(a) allowed the Prescribed Authority to entertain applications submitted after the due date if sufficient cause was shown. The petitioner also argued that the impugned order failed to adequately address the issue of condoning the delay and that the reasons provided in the subsequent affidavit by the department could not validate an otherwise bad order. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the refund applications were not available in their official records, nor was there proof of their timely submission. They asserted that the assessments were completed in 2012, and the 180-day period for filing refund applications began from the receipt of the Demand Notice. The respondents maintained that the petitioner's approach was casual and lacked proper justification for the delay, and their rejection order was in accordance with the statutory provisions.