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 →

Nucleus Marketing & Communication, Nucleus Impex Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax, Department of Trade & Taxes And Another

2016 (7) TMI 858 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Delay in processing and issuing the refund - It is asserted that neither was the refund issued to the Petitioner within 15 days nor was the case picked up for audit nor any security under Section 38 (5) of the DVAT Act demanded. No notice was issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act within 10 days from the date of filing return. - Held that:- the failure by the Respondent to process the refund claimed by the Petitioners for all the above tax periods appear to be wholly unjustified. It is no l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is any failure by the Respondent to comply with the directions, the Petitioners shall seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. - Decided against the revenue. - W. P. (C) 7511/2015, W.P.(C) 8104/2015, W.P.(C) 8393/2015 - Dated:- 12-7-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Najmi Waziri, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Babbar with Mr. Surinder Kumar, Mr. Bhagat Tripathi, Ms. Amita Babbar, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil) with Ms. Astha Nigam, Advocate ORDER Dr. 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

rs in accordance with Section 38 of the DVAT Act. In the case of NMC the refund together with interest was due for the months of November 2012 for the year 2012-13 and in the case of NIPL it was due for the 3rd and 4th quarter for 2012-13 as well as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2013-14. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that they have been filing returns as and when due under the DVAT Act. For the month of November 2012, the return was filed on 27th December 2012 claiming refund of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2013-14 the revised returns for the 1st and 2nd quarter were filed on 16th July 2014 claiming refund and for the 3rd and 4th quarter on 28th March 2015 (all revised returns) claiming refund. While the due date for issuance of refund for the 1st and 2nd quarter for 2013-14 was 16th September 2014, the refund for 3rd and 4th quarter for 2013-14 was due on 28th May 2015. 5. It is submitted that during the period in question, the dealers had less output tax payable and more input tax credit ( ITC ) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

refund issued to the Petitioner within 15 days nor was the case picked up for audit nor any security under Section 38 (5) of the DVAT Act demanded. No notice was issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act within 10 days from the date of filing return. 6. The main plank of the submission of Mr. A.K. Babbar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is based on the decision of this Court in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del) which was subs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner had failed to issue any assessment or order to that effect then the person aggrieved by such failure can file an objection before the Objection Hearing Authority ( OHA ) under Section 74 (2) of the DVAT Act. If the dealer is still aggrieved by the decision of the OHA, an appeal can be preferred before the Appellate Tribunal (AT) under Section 76 (1) of the DVAT Act. 8. As regards the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, the Court finds that the matter pertains to the delay in pro .....

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 not considered to be efficacious. The preliminary objection is, accordingly, rejected. 9. It is submitted by the Respondent that a survey was undertaken by the Enforcement Branch in the business premises of the Petitioners on 17th October 2014 wherein not only some variation in cash and stock was found but also it was admitted by the dealer that it was engaged in making purchases from suspicious dealers thereby claiming false ITC and false refunds. It is stated that the Petitioner voluntarily .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Respondent is silent on the failure by the Respondent to process the refund application within the time stipulated under Section 38 of the DVAT Act. It is also silent on the failure to comply with the Circular No. 6 issued by the Commissioner, VAT which is binding on the VATO. 12. It is pointed out by Mr. Babbar, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the counter-affidavit filed on 16th December 2015 adverting to the survey undertaken in the business premises of the Petitioners fails 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

ssment for 3rd quarter of 2014-15 the AVATO covered assessment for more than one AY (2013-14 and 2014-15). This resulted in default assessment orders dated 31st March 2015 being issued by the AVATO for the 3rd quarter of 2014-15 under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act to which the objections were filed before the OHA. The OHA has referred to the fact that the survey team had in the course of the survey collected two cheques of ₹ 13,30,790 from the Petitioner towards tax and ₹ 2,66,1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enalty sums above mentioned, hence not within the framework of law. Objector is eligible to seek refund of above stated advance tax and penalty paid as per the established provisions of law after satisfying the Ward Officer showing proof of payment of the same. 13. It is surprising that the Respondent has, while filing the counter- affidavit on 16th December 2015, concealed the above fact of OHA having found the survey undertaken to be illegal. The Court further notices that the OHA has, in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the aforesaid 3rd quarter of 2014. The OHA has also observed that the Petitioner had submitted evidence regarding the functionality of the alleged cancelled dealer, M/s. Eagle Trade Mart, through ward records and replies obtained under the RTI. Consequently, the OHA had concluded that the claim of the surveying Enforcement Officers that M/s. Eagle Trade Mart was a cancelled dealer, appears to be totally wrong, deceptive, incorrect and false, which is why, the Advance Tax Collection/Deposit of &# .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ound urged in the counter-affidavit for not processing the refund application appears to be entirely without basis, both factually and legally. In any event the fact remains that the survey undertaken was not a justification for the Respondent to not process the refund applications under Section 38 of the DVAT Act. 15. Section 38 of the DVAT Act reads as under: "38. Refunds- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the rules, the Commissioner shall refund to a person the &mid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- (a) refunded to the person, - (i) within one month after the date on which the return was furnished or claim for the refund was made, if the tax period for the person claiming refund is one month; (ii) within two months after the date on which the return was furnished or claim for the refund was made, if the tax period for the person claiming refund is a quarter; or (b) carried forward to the next tax period as a tax credit in that period. (4) Where the Commissioner has issued a notice to the .....

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 furnished or claim for the refund was made. (6) The Commissioner shall grant refund within fifteen days from the date the dealer furnishes the security to his satisfaction under sub-section (5). (7) For calculating the period prescribed in clause (a) of subsection (3), the time taken to- (a) furnish the security under sub-section (5) to the satisfaction of the Commissioner; or (b) furnish the additional information sought u:nder section 59; or (c) furnish returns under section 26 and section 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

ess the Commissioner is satisfied that the dealer has refunded the amount to the purchaser. (9) Where- (a) a registered dealer has sold goods to another registered dealer; and (b) The price charged for the goods expressly· includes an amount of tax payable under this Act, the amount may be refunded to the seller or may be applied by the seller under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of this section and the Commissioner may reassess the buyer to deny the amount of the corresponding tax credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of this section, no refund shall be allowed to a dealer who has not filed any return due under this Act." 16. It is seen that in the first place there are strict time limits laid down under Section 38 (3) read with Section 38 (7) of the DVAT Act. For taking any action under Section 38 (8) or 38 (9) or 38 (11) the dealer would have a notice in the first place by the Commissioner. Such notice would have to be only issued in such a manner that the time limit prescribed under Section 38 (3) of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner that the time limit under Section 38 (3) is adhered to. Obviously, the proceeding under Section 38 cannot result in reopening of concluded assessment. The statutory rejection for that course of action is entirely different. In other words, having missed the bus on the question of the reopening of a concluded assessment for whatever reason, the Commissioner cannot indirectly at the time of processing the application for refund seek to reopen a concluded assessment. 17. As rightly pointed out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thin two months after the date on which the return is furnished or the claim for the refund is made. Of course, it is the dealer's option to elect as to whether the refund is to be made in cash or the said amount is to be carried forward to the next tax period as a tax credit in that period. In the present case, the petitioner has elected for the grant of refunds in cash and has not elected for carrying forward the refund amount to the next tax period. The provisions of Section 38(3) uses th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inasmuch as the provisions of Section 38 do not contemplate a situation where the Commissioner does not grant a refund within the stipulated period. The decision in Behl Construction (supra) was in the context· of the provisions of Section 7 4 and those circumstances do not arise in the present case. As pointed out above, what this court has to determine is: what is the legislative intent behind the provisions of Section 38? It is this intent which shall determine whether the stipulations .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prescribed in clause (a) of sub-section (3), the time taken to furnish the security under sub-section (5) to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or to furnish the additional information sought under Section 59 or to furnish returns under Sections 26 and 27, "shall be excluded". This provision as to exclusion of time taken in doing the aforesaid acts, is in itself an indication that the legislature was dead serious about the stipulation as to time for making refunds under Section 38 (3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 38(3)(a)(ii), the refund has to be made within two months from the date of the return. 19. The Court in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax (supra) also rejected the argument that the issuance of notice to the dealer under Section 59 of the DVAT Act could delay the grant of refund. The Court observed as under: 13. In any event, even if we assume that the said notice was issued by the respondents and that it had been received by the petitioner, it would not change .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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