2018 (8) TMI 1811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... And Ms. Hafsa Khan For The Respondent. ORDER The petitioner's grievance is that its entitlement to refund of about Rs. 1,50,50,577/-, with interest for the period June, 2010 to March, 2012, has been unjustifiably withheld. The Government of NCT of Delhi i.e. the respondents, were unable to justify the basis for the impugned orders which accepted the returns and generated "zero demands" and at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct (on 13.06.2012, 06.08.2012 and 08.08.2012) had remained unserved and as a result, the refund claims could not be acceded to, and in fact, were rejected. This Court has considered the submissions. The authority of the ruling in Prime Papers & Packers v. Commissioner of VAT & Anr. WP(C) 6013/2016 decided on 28.07.2016 clearly states that the notice under Section 59 of the DV AT Act, if at a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nded after adjusting tax due together with interest payable in accordance with law within a period of two weeks" In the present case too, the assessments were apparently completed, over six years back - for the last all the quarters and almost eight years ago for the earliest quarter. In the circumstances, the impugned zero assessment orders (except the order dated 02.02.2012 by the VATO for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X