M/S. Tata Motors Ltd. vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010270802018

2026:GAU-AS:15712
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8526/2018
M/S. TATA MOTORS LTD.
3RD FLOOR, MONAL TOWER, BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIA, G.S.ROAD,
DISPUR, GHY-6 (REP. BY JAYDEEP CHAKRAVORTY)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FINANCE
DEPTT. (TAXATION) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
GHY UNIT-C
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
GHY UNIT-C
KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GHY-6
5:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
3RD FLOOR
STATFED BUILDING
GMC HOSPITAL RD

Page No.# 2/7
BHANGAGARH
GHY
ASSAM
78100

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Roy, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. A. Goyel, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam
: Mr. S. Bora, Standing Counsel

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 14.10.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : NA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.
Goyel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam
who is also the Standing counsel of the Finance and Taxation
Department of the Government of Assam appearing on behalf of
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. I have also heard Mr. S. Bora, the
learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
No.5.

Page No.# 3/7
2. The Petitioner herein is a registered dealer under the Assam
Valued Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the ‘Act of 2003’). During
the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Petitioner supplied various
vehicles to Respondent No.5. It is the claim of the Petitioner that
upon supply of the vehicles, the Petitioner had duly paid the tax in
respect of the vehicles. However, the Respondent No.5 had
deducted an amount of Rs.1,82,62,867/- at source from the dues
payable to the Petitioner and the said amount was deposited by
the Respondent No.5 almost after two years.
3. At the time when the Petitioner submitted its annual returns,
the amount which was deducted by the Respondent No.5 was not
mentioned. After filing of the return by the Petitioner, the
Respondent No.3 has issued a notice on 12.05.2011 asking the
Petitioner Company to clarify and confirm within 7 (seven) days
from the date of receipt of the said notice of an amount of
Rs.1,96,537/- which the Respondent No.3 could not reconcile.
Thereafter, the representative of the Petitioner appeared before the
Respondent No. 3 and clarified that the amount of Rs.1,96,537/-
formed part of the annual return submitted by the Petitioner.
Thereupon, no further communication was issued by the
Respondent No.3.

Page No.# 4/7
4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the amount which
was deducted by the Respondent No.5 from the bills payable to the
Petitioner on account of tax deducted at source to the tune of
Rs.1,82,62,867/- has to be considered as an excess payment made
by the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and it is
under such circumstances the Petitioner submitted a refund
application on 28.10.2013 along with a certificate of the Audit of
Account dated 22.10.2010. The Respondents in the Finance and
Taxation Department of the Government of Assam duly received
the same. But no action was taken on the refund application.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of the Petitioner that an
impression was given by the Respondent No.4 that an audit
assessment would be carried out which was never done, for which
the Petitioner has submitted representation on 07.01.2016 also.
However, the refund application continued to be pending and no
order was passed except verbally intimating the Petitioner that it
was time barred. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order
dated 04.01.2019 issued Rule. Affidavits have been filed by the
Respondents providing various reasons as to why the application

Page No.# 5/7
for refund could not be considered.
7. Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner submitted that Section 50 of the Act of 2003
provides that an application for refund can be filed. He further
submitted that when such an application is filed, the prescribed
authority is also required to take action on that. No action has
been taken in spite of the fact that in the year 2013, the said
application was filed and as on date, another 13 years have passed
by, but the Respondent Authorities, particularly the Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 have not taken a decision on the refund application.
He therefore submitted that this is a case wherein an obligation
has been cast upon the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take an action
in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 2003, which having not been
taken, this Court may issue a direction upon the Respondent
Authorities to consider the Petitioner's application for refund and
thereupon make payment of the said amount to which the
Petitioner is entitled to.
8. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel
for the Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of
Assam submitted that the question of any audit assessment to be
carried out is nothing but figments of imagination of the Petitioner

Page No.# 6/7
inasmuch as, after submission the self-assessed return, the said
return was duly accepted inasmuch as no further steps were taken.
Once the return has been accepted, the question of refund would
only arise, if an application is filed in terms with Section 50 read
with Rule 29 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short,
the Rules of 2005).
9. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsels for both the
parties, enquired with the learned Standing counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent Authorities more particularly the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, as to whether it is permissible to keep the
said application pending without a further order being passed,
inasmuch as, if an order is passed in favour of the Petitioner, the
Petitioner would be entitled to the refund, and if not, the Petitioner
can avail remedies available in law.
10. It is the opinion of this Court that when the statute provides a
remedy by which refund can be sought for, and when an assessee
duly submits such an application, it is incumbent upon the
prescribed authority to decide on the said application and pass an
order. A verbal intimation or a stand taken in an affidavit why no
orders have been passed would not suffice or can be said to be a
substitute to an order to be passed on an application filed under

Page No.# 7/7
Section 50 of the Act of 2003.
11. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The Respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the application
for refund within a period of 45 days from the date a certified copy
of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No.3. Prior
to disposing, the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity of
personal hearing, so that the Petitioner is in a position to
substantiate the stand by making appropriate submissions.
(ii) It is observed that in the circumstance, the Petitioner is
aggrieved by any order passed, the Petitioner would be at liberty to
approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
(iii) Any of the observations made in the present order shall not
affect either of the parties in the adjudication on the entitlement of
the refund.

Digitally signed by
Bijoy Saha
Date: 2026.10.16
16:13:46 +05'30'
JUDGE
Bijoy Saha
Comparing Assistant