TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter the fresh assessment order had to be passed. Again, the VATO failed to do so. Consequently, with the earlier demands already having been set aside by the OHA and the ATVAT and no fresh orders having been passed by the VATO pursuant to the remand during the time stipulated, there is no justification whatsoever in denying the refund due to the Petitioner. A direction is issued to the Respondents to refund to the Petitioner the sum of ₹ 1,58,99,041/- within a period of 8 weeks from today together with interest from the expiry of 1 month from the filing of respective returns in terms of Section 42 of the DVAT Act. If the above directions are not followed it will make the Respondents liable to pay further simple interest @ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by this Court in WP(C) 1563 of 2018 (Arora Enterprises v. Commissioner, Trade and Taxes) which in turn has referred to earlier orders dated 1st June 2016 in WP(C) 5032 of 2016 (JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes) and 21st November 2016 in WP(C) 9252 of 2016 (Aesthetic Packaging v. Commissioner of VAT). 4. In response to the notice issued in the present petition a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in which inter alia its stated that the refund claims for the periods April 2010 to December 2010 and January to March 2011 and August 2011 have been already rejected by 13 orders of the AA dated 3rd August and 8th August 2012. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Petitioner filed two objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Respondents is that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of refund to it pursuant to the assessments already finalized. The refund is sought to be denied by creating fresh demands which for some periods is nil and for others on completely untenable grounds for which orders have already been set aside by the OHA and ATVAT. 7. The Court was faced with a more or less similar situation in the case decided by it on 5th August 2016 in WP (C) 5478 of 2016 (Shaila Enterprises v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax). There again the contention of the Respondents was that pursuant to the remand orders passed by the OHA requiring the Petitioner to again appear before the VATO, the Petitioner did not appear on the date fixed and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st by virtue of the order dated 25 th June 2013 and with no fresh assessment order being passed, there was no legal impediment any longer in granting refund to the Petitioner in respect of the claim made along with its return filed for the month of January 2008. The AO, obviously did not realise the implications of his failure to pass fresh assessment order in terms of the order dated 25th June 2013 of the OHA. 19. This Court has in a series of judgments emphasised the mandatory nature of the time limits under Section 38 of the DVAT Act for processing of the refunds. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del), Lotus Impex v. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Petitioner, this Court in Shaila Enterprises further observed: 24. Before parting with the matter, the Court would like to add that this is yet another instance of orders being passed by the officers of the DT T with total non-application of mind and in ignorance of the legal position. The Court would only like to reiterate that there is an urgent need for an orientation being imparted to the officers of the DT T in the law and the decisions of the Court explaining the law. In this regard, the court would like to reiterate the observations made by it in Capri Bathaid Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Taxes (2016) 90 VST 143 (Del). 53. The CVAT should also hold regular orientation and training courses fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed by this Court in its order dated 26th February 2019 in WP 10020 of 2018 (Blue Star Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes) where this Court quashed the fresh demand sought to be created at the stage of claim for refund by the Assessee. 12. Reverting to the case in hand, the order passed by the OHA remanding the matter to the VATO is dated 21st February 2017. Although no time limit was set, it is clear that the fresh order to be passed within 1 year from the date of the order was not passed. As far as the order passed by the ATVAT is concerned, it is dated 30th July 2015 and within 1 year thereafter the fresh assessment order had to be passed. Again, the VATO failed to do so. Consequently, with the earlier demands already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
