RAGHAV CIVCON PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who were works contractors registered under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'VAT Act'). The issue agitated in the writ petitions is with respect to the refund of excess tax paid.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though refund is provided under Sec. 68 of the VAT Act read with Rule 43 of the VAT rules, an application has to be made under Form No. A-VIII, when a demand notice is issued. It is also submitted that the issuance of a demand notice for tax is possible only when there is a notice of hearing under Sec. 25(2) in Form No. N-III. It is also argued that for filing a refund claim in Form No. AA-8 service of demand notice under Form No. A-VIII is precondition. Since Form No. A-VIII requires details of tax demanded, this having not been done the petitioner was prevented from claiming refund. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta; AIR 1992 SC 159.

(3.) It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that assessment is one integrated process, which not only determines the total income but also computes the tax payable, on which the demand is raised. Computation of tax, as per the assessment order, has to be done by the Assessing Officer and in the process of assessment, the order in writing should not only indicate the total income but also the net sum which will be payable by the assessee for the assessment year in question.