Uranious Medicalcare vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

H.G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for refund of a sum of Rs. 3,27,927/- as reflected in Annexure-A and a sum of Rs. 85,073/- as reflected in Annexure-B, being the refund of VAT for the months of April 2013 to August 2013 respectively with interest thereon and for such other orders.

Petitioner is carrying on business of surgical and hospital goods. It filed returns for the months of April 2013 to August 2013 and claimed refund of amount of Rs. 3,27,927/- and Rs. 85,073/-. The respondent did not refund the same. In this connection, petitioner addressed letters to the respondent on 23.9.2013 and 15.9.2014. According to the learned Addl. Government Advocate, the representation given by the petitioner is considered in accordance with law vide endorsement dated 13.11.2014 and the said endorsement is received by the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, a notice has to be caused for re-assessment. Unless it is considered for reassessment, it is deemed to have been assessed and as such, the contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted. He further submitted that once returns are filed, it is deemed to be assessed against which the assessing officer has no right to initiate action and it is only the Commissioner who can take decision or order for re-assessment. In this connection, he referred to Rule 38 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules'' for short) wherein it is stated that:

Submission of monthly return. - (1) Every registered dealer shall submit a monthly or quarterly return as the case may be, containing values of sales, purchases and other transactions, input and output tax claimed or collected and net tax relating to all of his places of business, and accompanied by proof of full payment of any tax due including any certificate of deduction of tax at source and a statement containing the details of purchases made within the State from other registered dealers in respect of which he is eligible to claim deduction of input tax and sales of taxable goods made to other registered dealers in the State to the jurisdictional Local VAT Officer or VAT Sub-Officer in Form VAT 100 within twenty days after the end of the relevant month where the tax period is a calendar month or fifteen days after the end of the relevant quarter where the tax period is a quarter."

As against this, Rule 39 of the Rules is quoted by Addl. Government Advocate who sought to contend that where any return submitted is apparently incomplete or incorrect, the jurisdictional Local VAT officer or VAT sub-officer shall issue a notice in Form VAT 150 requiring the dealer to submit a complete or correct return within ten days of issue of the notice. He further submitted that notice issued by way of endorsement to the petitioner is received by them and certain of the documents are called for verification but the same has not been produced. As such, unless and until the documents called for are produced by the petitioner, the question of refund of excess amount may not arise. He also referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 128 of the Rules wherein it is stated that the Local VAT officer or VAT sub-officer may reject, within the time specified in sub-rule (1) or (2), any claim for refund if the claim filed appears to involve any mistake apparent on the record or appears to be incorrect or incomplete, based on any information available on record, after giving the dealer the opportunity to show cause in writing against such rejection.

The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that there has to be deemed assessment. Whereas the Rules provide that if the Local VAT officer entertains a doubt either with regard to mistake crept in or any false information furnished, he can ask for clarification. In the present case, there is said to be notice caused by way of endorsement to the petitioner. However, petitioner has not submitted relevant documents. In that view of the matter, straight away considering the case of the petitioner for refund of excess amount may not arise unless he complies with the requirement of Rule 128(3) of the Rules.

In view of the above, the respondent-authority is directed to take a decision as to whether petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount or not after verification of the documents to be produced by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

Writ Petitions are disposed of.