Civil Writ Petitions No.21488 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petitions No.21488 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Haryana State Warehousing Corporation ...Petitioner Versus The Excise and Taxation Commissioner and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks a direction for refund of the excess amount of Rs.1,65,68,239/- with interest. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a statutory Corporation under the provisions of Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 and is registered under the provisions of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). On account of some mistake the petitioner was not given the benefit of input tax credit to the extent required. However, vide order dated 28.5.2009 Annexure P-1 earlier order was rectified. The petitioner was held to have paid excess amount to the extent of Rs.2,01,34,915/- which was ordered to be carried forward in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner sought refund of the amount as it was not agreeable for adjustment for several years. This prayer was not accepted. On further application of the petitioner, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rewari vide order dated 13.10.2010 rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund. Civil Writ Petitions No.21488 of 2010 -2- **** 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once it was accepted that petitioner has paid excess amount, the same is liable to be refunded under Section 20 of the Act with interest or to be adjusted against future liability. Since the petitioner was not having sufficient future liability, the petitioner is entitled to the option of refund. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that revisional authority has taken suo motu action for revising impugned order and the matter is pending consideration. He could not, however, justify rejection of claim for refund if the petitioner did not find the option of future adjustment to be viable. 6. We are of the view that once it is found that petitioner had paid excess amount, it was entitled to refund thereof with statutory interest as an alternative to adjustment. The amount has been due for the last several years and even after the order of rectification, period of above two years has passed. If the revisional authority is looking into the matter, the said authority may take a final decision of the matter within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that petitioner will be entitled to refund of the amount with statutory interest as the same cannot be withheld only the ground that it will be adjusted against future liability when according to the petitioner it is not viable to do so. 7. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 29, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge