KMC CONSTRUCTION, HYDERABAD Vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in not granting refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner for the tax period 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively, in a sum of Rs.4,44,62,188/-, pursuant to the order dt. 18.02.2019, in T.A.No.176 of 2016 passed by the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal ').

(2.) The petitioner contends that aggrieved by the order dt. 30.05.2016 of the 2nd respondent, passed in excise of revisional powers conferred under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as adopted by the State of Telangana (TVAT Act) (for short, 'the Act '), the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, numbered as T.A.No.176 of 2016; that the said appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 18.02.2019, whereby the order of the revisional authority - 2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the enhanced rate of 5%, as introduced w.e.f 15.09.2011, in respect of ongoing works contracts as against the rate of tax of 4% having opted to pay under the composition scheme provided under the Act, was set aside.

(3.) The petitioner further contends that, upon the appeal being allowed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent had passed consequential order, by his proceedings, dt. 15.05.2019, termed as "Revised Assessment Order " giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in T.A.No.176 of 2016, dt. 18.02.2019; that by the said revised assessment order, the total excess tax paid by the petitioner was determined in a sum of Rs.4,44,62,188/-; upon such determination, the petitioner requested for grant of refund of the excess amount of tax paid and had executed an Indemnity Bond undertaking that the petitioner would refund the amount immediately on receipt of demand, if it was detected that the petitioner is not entitled for the said refund as sought for, and submitted the same with the 1st respondent on 20.06.2019 for crediting the excess tax paid to the petitioner 's Bank account; and that despite regular follow up with the 1st respondent, the amount of refund due to the petitioner in terms of the revised assessment order has not been paid.