SADIKALI Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in timber and timber logs, having registration under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2008 and Central Sales Tax Act 1956. He is purchasing timber logs from various Depots under the Forest Department of the State Government, on payment of tax due thereon. With respect to the year ending on 31.3.2006, there is excess input tax credit remaining unadjusted in the accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner filed refund application in the prescribed form as evidenced by Ext.Pl. Through Ext.P2 notice, the first respondent informed the petitioner that refund of excess input tax cannot be made for want of details. The petitioner was requested to produce lax payment details from various offices of the Forest Departments. Through Ext.P3, the petitioner replied that the bills produced by him are issued from the Government depots and it will clearly disclose collection of tax on the sale value of the timber. Further it was pointed out that the tax amounts were paid through separate Demand Drafts and particulars of such remittances were already furnished along with the monthly returns, enclosing copies of such Demand Drafts. In the reply it is stated that, since the seller is the Forest Department, it is capable of easy verification from the offices concerned. But without considering the explanations in reply, the claim for refund was rejected through Ext.P4 order. Eventhough the petitioner submitted a representation before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, nothing was received in response. Hence the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P4 and seeks direction to the first respondent to grant refund of the excess input tax.

(2.) The respondents in their counter affidavit admit that the petitioner had furnished all bills and copies of Demand Drafts. According to the respondents, what was requested is to furnish tax remittance certificates from the Forest Department in order to confirm the payments. The contention is that it is not practically possible to have a cross verification with the various offices in the Forest Department. It is stated that the rejection of the claim for refund is valid because the petitioner had failed to produce certificates obtained from the Forest Department.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Forest Department is also a 'dealer' under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added fax, and the tax amount is paid when the petitioner purchased goods from that dealer. Therefore credit need be given for the amount of such input tax, the payments of which are proved through production of bills and copies of Demand Drafts. According to him, even if any cross verification is needed, it is the duty of the assessing authority concerned, and that the petitioner could not be insisted to obtain any further certificates. Therefore the rejection of the claim for refund is totally unsustainable, is the contention.