Nivz Imports & Exports A Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Kerala High Court)
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Kerala HC have held that refund due to the petitioner for the year 2016-17 could not have been adjusted against the demand for 2015-16 when there was a stay on account of the provisions contained in Section 60 (1A) of the KVAT Act.
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is the grievance of the petitioner that a refund due for the year 2016-17 has been adjusted against a demand for the AY 2015-16. It is legally sustainable in the eye of the law as 2nd appeal against demand for AY 2015-16 is pending before Kerala Value Added Tax Tribunal. It is pointed out that the petitioner had already remitted 10% of the demand and going by the provisions of Section 60(1A) of the KVAT Act (as amended with effect from 01.04.2023), there is an automatic stay of recovery of the balance on deposit of 10% of the tax amount.
It was argued on behalf of tax department that the fact of filing of the appeal and the deposit of 10% was not made known to the Assessing Authority, as a result of which the refund due to the petitioner for the year 2016-17 was adjusted against the demand for 2015-16.
