M/S Suraj Bhan Mam Chand v. The State Of Haryana & Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.3.2016 M/s Suraj Bhan Mam Chand, Karnal ....Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Haryana and another

...Respondents.

1.

Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG.

PRESENT: Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to refund the amount of tax paid in excess by the petitioner and as assessed by the assessing authority vide order dated 27.3.2015 (Annexure P-1). 2.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of gunny and jute bags and purchased the bardana from within the State of Haryana after payment of full tax as well as outside the State of Haryana which is sold in the course of Inter-State Trade or Commerce. The assessment for the year 2011-12 was framed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cumAssessing Authority vide order dated 27.3.2015 (Annexure P-1) for the

-2year 2013-14 under Section 15(2) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and an amount of ` 13,88,749/- was found in excess and refundable to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for issue of refund voucher and respondent No.2 recommended vide letter dated 6.5.2015 (Annexure P2) for release of the refund amount to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner who recommended vide letter, Annexure P-3, for the refund of the said amount to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range), Ambala. After the file of the petitioner was put up before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range), Ambala for grant of necessary approval, the same was sent back for verification of C-Forms submitted and produced by the petitioner and the entire exercise was required to be carried out before the assessment is framed.

The meeting was held for the purpose of finalizing the issue of refund which is discernible from the minute sheet, Annexure P-4. The petitioner vide letters dated 5.10.2015 and 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-5 Colly) informed the department for non-receipt of the refund voucher. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 2.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.2 for issuance of refund voucher of ` 12,88,749/-, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner sent a letter dated 2.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the letter dated 2.2.2016 (Annexure P-6), in

-3accordance 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 certified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of refund, the same be paid to it within next one month in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 22, 2016 (RAJ RAHUL GARG) gbs JUDGE