Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

2016 (6) TMI 188 - DELHI HIGH COURT

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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version