M/s S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The objection that a refund application was filed before the Joint Commissioner and not the re-designated Additional Commissioner of State Tax is a technical objection that cannot be accepted, because the application could have been forwarded; but interest runs only if the delay is not attributable to the dealer, and a defective Form A-VIII left uncorrected for a year makes the amount not yet refundable.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-11
A tyre manufacturer's vehicle was penalised ₹1,69,017 under the Bihar VAT Act in 2014, and the Tribunal later set the penalty aside. The dealer's refund application of 21 May 2024 was defective and was not corrected for a year. The Patna High Court held the forum objection unsustainable but required a fresh form and refund within ten days.
What happened
The petitioner, a private limited company manufacturing tyres, had a truck intercepted at Bhagalpur on 1 June 2014 while carrying goods from West Bengal to Sitamarhi, and a penalty of ₹1,69,017 was imposed under section 61(3) read with section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The penalty and the appellate order of 28 February 2015 were set aside by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal in Appeal Case No. BH-224/2015, and the order was forwarded to the authority on 20 January 2023. The petitioner paid the penalty by challan on 6 June 2024 and applied for refund in Form A-VIII on 21 May 2024 before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur Circle-1. The State said that the form had to go to the Additional Commissioner of State Tax and was defective, with a case number in place of the TIN, the driver's name in place of the dealer and the vehicle number in place of the business location, and that the Joint Commissioner had on 18 June 2025 told the petitioner to correct it; the petitioner came to the Court on 7 May 2026. The petitioner argued that Form A-VIII applies only to tax, not penalty, and that interest was due from the date the Tribunal's order was communicated.
Questions before the court
- Could the refund of the penalty be refused because the application was filed before the wrong designation or in a defective form, and from when does interest run?
Why the court ruled this way
Under rule 43(1) of the Bihar VAT Rules the prescribed authority is the Joint Commissioner where the refund exceeds ₹50,000, and the Division Bench in Milith Karv Engineering and Trading Pvt. Ltd. followed that; after the 2017 GST Act the post was re-designated Additional Commissioner of State Tax by a notification of 10 August 2018 (paragraphs 10 to 12). The application filed before the Joint Commissioner could have been forwarded to the Additional Commissioner, so the technical objection was rejected (paragraph 12). Reading sections 68 and 70 with rule 43 and Form A-VIII, refund must be claimed in that form, which covers both excess tax and penalty, so the argument that it applies to tax alone failed (paragraphs 13 and 14). Under section 70(2), the period of delay attributable to the dealer is excluded from interest (paragraph 15). Since the dealer filed a defective form and did not correct it for a year, the amount was not yet refundable (paragraph 16).
Controlling point
The forum objection fails, but the defective application meant refund was not yet due; a fresh application is to be made and decided quickly.
Order and next steps
The petitioner is to file a fresh Form A-VIII before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax within ten days of receiving or producing a copy of the order, and the Additional Commissioner is to refund within ten days of receiving it. If payment is not made within that period, the authority is to pay interest at 6% per annum for the delay from his own pocket. The personal appearance of respondent 2 was dispensed with, and the writ application was disposed of.
Practical implications
A dealer entitled to a penalty refund after a Tribunal order should file a complete Form A-VIII in the right format and answer any defect notice promptly, since delay attributable to the dealer is excluded from interest.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court did not award interest from the date of the Tribunal's order; interest at 6% is conditional on the authority missing the ten-day deadline, and the relief is confined to Bihar's VAT refund procedure.
Law and judgment source
- Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, sections 56(4)(b), 61(3), 68 and 70
- Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, rule 43
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-11 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–20 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.