3.In our considered view, declaratory relief sought for by the petitioner is unnecessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, thus, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. However, we have examined the correctness of the order passed by the third respondent, dated 06.02.2012. By the said proceedings, the claim for refund made by the petitioner/dealer in Form-W dated 24.01.2012, had been rejected, as it has been submitted after the expiry of 180 days time period and the authority held that the application is not entertainable as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Valued Added Tax Act. An identical issue has come up for consideration before the Principal Bench of this Court in several cases and one such case before this Court is R.K.Knits Vs., Assistant Commissioner (CT) (MAD) reported in (2015)84 VST 521 (Mad), wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer should not reject the refund claim on the ground that the Form-W has been filed beyond 108 days, the reason being that the provision of the Input Tax Credit being a beneficial provisions and the Act contemplates filing of monthly returns, the claim could be made therein by giving necessary details along with Input Tax Credit refund claim and proper course for the Assistant Commissioner would be to take up the Assessment expeditiously. This decision was subsequently followed in the case of First Garment MFG.Co.(INDIA) Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Mad) reported in (2016) 88 VST 154 (Mad) . The aforementioned two decisions were followed in the case of Tvl.Mahaajay Spinners India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Assessment Circle, Salem in W.P.No.28275 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016 .
