Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan & Another Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anothers

Seeking refund of outstanding amount of tax credit - Refund application was already rejected by the respondents many a times even after the directions provided by the Court for refund of tax credit - Held that:- considering that there has been an abject failure by the Respondents to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act, the Court sees no purpose being served in the Petitioners at this stage producing records of over ten years from 1st April 2005 till 21st January 2016. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

p to 2012 was also never questioned by the Respondents.

In the circumstances, the production of records at this stage by the Petitioner No. 1 will only delay the refund further. Considering the number of times the Petitioners have had to approach this Court, the request of counsel for the Respondents for yet another opportunity to consider afresh the issue of refund due to Petitioner No. 1 is not justified. The whole object of stipulating a time schedule under Section 38 of the DVAT A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr A. Maitri, Ms Radhika Chandrashekhar and Mr Naresh Goel, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing counsel and Mr R. A. Iyer, Advocate along with Mr Ram Avtar Meena and Mr R. S. Ruhil, VATO ORDER 1. The challenge in W.P.(C) No.610/2016 is to the letter dated 29th June, 2015 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-16 rejecting the application of the Petitioner No. 1 proprietory concern, of which Petitioner No. 2 is the Prop .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e subsequent years. According to the Petitioners, between 2007 and 2012 it submitted returns under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) regularly and kept carrying forward the above amount under the column refund . 3. On 11th May, 2012, the registration of Petitioner No. 1 was cancelled. The objections by the Petitioners to the cancellation were ultimately allowed and the registration was restored on 17th October, 2014. 4. On 20th December, 2014, Petitioner No. 1 filed its return and i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gain rejecting the refund claimed by stating that the return for August 2006 reflected NIL as carry forward refund, whereas a refund was shown in the subsequent return of September, 2006 onwards. The DT&T observed that the claim was incorrect and, therefore, could not be entertained. 5. On 30th March, 2015, the Petitioners made a detailed representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-16 protesting against the above rejection. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No. 4905/2015 was filed challenging the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which, after setting out the brought forward and carry forward figures from April 2006 to March 2007, it was observed as under: "The above mentioned Chart based on the information of the dealer filed in DVAT-16 clearly reflects that there is no continuity in brought forward and carry forward or refunds. As such the claim of the dealer of refund is not correct and cannot be considered at this stage and the same is hereby rejected. 7. Initially, against the above order the Petitioners filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0th February, 2016, the relevant portion of which reads as under: 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P. (C) 610/2016 stating that a notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 59 (2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 ( DVAT Act‟) on 22nd January, 2016 requiring the Petitioner to produce documents for the period 1st April, 2005 to 22nd January, 2016. It is further stated that upon failure by the Petitioner to produce the documents, even within the time sought by the Petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1117/2016. 5. When asked what prompted the issuance of notice under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act, Mr Gautam Narayan, learned counsel for the Respondent, informs the Court that the records of the Petitioner were unable to be traced and which is why it became necessary to seek information from the Petitioner. Mr Narayan states that the Respondent will file an affidavit at least one week prior to the next date of hearing explaining the circumstances under which the records of the Petitioner's .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hearing no coercive steps be taken to enforce the demand and penalty in terms of aforementioned orders dated 6th February 2016. 9. The Court on 8th April, 2016 granted the Respondents further time to file an affidavit and directed that the complete records of the case be kept ready for perusal of the Court. 10. Today, the Court is informed by Mr Gautam Narayan and Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing counsel for the Respondents that the records of the case are not traceable. It is stated that durin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s from today. 11. If there was no background to the present case, and the long history which has been adverted to, the Court may have been persuaded to consider the aforesaid request of the Respondents. When the Court inquired what records should be asked to be produced, the counsel for the Respondents referred to the notice dated 22nd January 2016 issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act asking the Petitioner to produce 25 documents for a period of over ten years from 1st April, 2005 to 22nd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess the refund application made by the Petitioner within two months from first receiving it on 20th December 2014. Instead a casual communication, and not even an order, was sent on 7th March 2015 informing the Petitioner that the refund was rejected on the ground that only a sum of ₹ 1,08,831 was found refundable. Thereafter, again on 28th April 2015 a letter, and not an order, was sent again rejecting the refund. This time the ground was different. It was said that the return for August .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as rejected y the impugned order dated 29th June 2015, not on the ground that the records were not available but because "there is no continuity in brought forward and carry forward or refunds." For the second time this Court directed the Respondents, by its order dated 22nd January 2016, to decide the refund application within two weeks. However, instead the Respondents issued the above notice under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act and followed that up with a notice dated 6th February 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id patently illegal default assessments of tax, interest and penalty. 13. Considering that there has been an abject failure by the Respondents to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act, the Court sees no purpose being served in the Petitioners at this stage producing records of over ten years from 1st April 2005 till 21st January 2016. Since the Respondents in any event do not have the records, it will not be possible for them to verify the correctness of the records to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 1 will only delay the refund further. Considering the number of times the Petitioners have had to approach this Court, the request of counsel for the Respondents for yet another opportunity to consider afresh the issue of refund due to Petitioner No. 1 is not justified. The whole object of stipulating a time schedule under Section 38 of the DVAT Act for processing refunds will be defeated if any further indulgence is shown to the Respondents. 14. In the circumstances, for the aforementioned re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version