In the present case, the assessment for the period 2009 to March, 2011 became final, because the remand order (dated 17.09.2012) was never followed through with a fresh assessment order within the time period. Therefore, even if a fresh four-year period were to have been reckoned, that too ended. The revenue’s attempt to either verify the refund claim or to reopen the assessment under Section 34 is therefore, clearly beyond the authority of law. The court does not find any merit in the revenue’s argument that the petitioner had wrongly claimed carry forward and ought to have sought refund and that its claim is now barred, because the time period for revising the returns (one year) has since passed. The pattern and structure of the DVAT is such that if an assessment order is not passed, the returns acquire the status of a default assessment; if any unadjusted credit exists, the assessse’s right to refund crystallizes. Therefore, in the present case, that the assesssee wrongly showed the refund claim amount as carry forward, or that it did not subsequently reflect it in the later returns, does not preclude its basic refund claim, on which it has maintained a consistent stand. The revenue’s argument that refund is impermissible because the period for revising returns is utterly frivolous and baseless. If such an argument were to be countenanced, in every case, the assessee would have to revise its returns wherever it anticipates a refund, or a remand by the OHA. Clearly, it is the duty of the revenue to give consequential effect to the final effect of the OHA’s orders, that might set aside assessments. If no order is made within the time limit prescribed, clearly the revenue cannot hold on to the monies which do not bear the character of a valid levy; they have to be refunded.
