Disposed

M/S Tata International Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2018CWP/12397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the respondent authorities to decide a pending VAT refund application and issue a reminder within two months, following provisions of the Punjab VAT Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the pending refund application and issue a speaking order within two months.

M/S Tata International Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 12397 of 2018 Decided on : 16.05.2018

¶3

M/s Tata International Ltd.

¶4

. . . Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

. . . Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the respondents to release claim of refund of the petitioner along with interest, as the same has not been released so far.

¶14

The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of bicycles at Ludhiana and registered under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act of 2005') as well as CST Act. The petitioner is regularly filing the VAT returns and annual statements. As per the return for quarter ending on 31.03.2016, there is an excess input tax credit for which the petitioner is entitled for refund in terms of Section 39 of the Act of 2005. For the said purpose, the petitioner has applied on VAT-29 form for grant of refund of `1,62,59,462/- on 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-1), however, no action thereon has been taken so far and the petitioner is suffering without any fault. The petitioner again made a request to the respondents for taking decision on the pending refund application, as under the provisions of the Act of 2005, the same has to be decided within a period of 90 days, but all in vain. Due to this act of the respondent officers, the petitioner is Jawala Ram 2018.05.18 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CWP No. 12397 of 2018

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

facing great hardship in running the business smoothly. In addition to this, the petitioner is also entitled for interest in terms of Section 40 of the Act of 2005. The petitioner has also submitted the reminder on 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) for release of refund, but the respondents have failed to take a decision on the same. As a result of which, neither the amount claimed as refund nor interest as applicable thereon has been granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent the application in the shape of form VAT-29 of the Act of 2005 dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter reminder dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) to the respondents, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the application dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) and reminder dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

May 16, 2018 J.Ram

¶22

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶24

Jawala Ram 2018.05.18 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Tata International Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tata International Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaimal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Shri Guru Ram Dass & Company Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.

Bal Krishan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sahil Alloys and Machine Tools (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Others

Sandeep Malik Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Arihant Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.