Tax authorities must decide statutory refund applications by passing a formal order.

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, supplied vehicles to the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority during Assessment Year 2009–10.

The Authority deducted ₹1,82,62,867 as tax at source and deposited it nearly two years later.

The petitioner subsequently applied for a refund on 28 October 2013, but the tax authorities did not decide the application; the petitioner was verbally told that it was time-barred.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking action on the refund application.

The respondents filed affidavits explaining why it had not been considered.

Section 50 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with Rule 29 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, provides the statutory route for seeking a refund.

Where an assessee submits an application under that framework, the prescribed authority must consider it and pass an order.

A verbal intimation or an explanation in an affidavit for the authority’s inaction cannot substitute for a decision on the application.

The Court did not determine the substantive entitlement to a refund.

The petitioner had submitted a refund application, and the authorities had taken no formal decision on it.

The Court held that the statutory refund mechanism required the prescribed authority to decide the application, regardless of the respondents’ explanations for the delay or their assertion that the return had been accepted.

Because the petitioner’s entitlement depended on the authority’s consideration of the application, the Court directed a decision rather than ordering payment of the claimed amount.

The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the resulting order.

The Court expressly left the parties’ positions on entitlement to the refund open.