TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2012, December 2012 and May and June 2010 cannot be justified. The orders creating such demands simply state that the purchase made from a registered dealer could not be verified . This is not a good enough a reason to invoke Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act as explained by this Court in its judgment in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. This Court sets aside the fresh demands created by the Respondents for the aforementioned periods i.e. May 2010, June 2010, July 2012 and December 2012 - Respondents are directed now to issue the refund orders for the aforementioned periods and ensure that the refund amounts are credited to the account of the Petitioner not later than 30th June 2019 - petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 8851/2018 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under the DVAT Act subsisted. 5. The Petitioner states that its returns filed for the aforementioned periods in which it claimed refunds were duly assessed with there being a NIL demand. The Petitioner further states that for the period June 2011 it was assessed under the CST Act by the Special Objection Hearing Authority (Special OHA) on 21st April 2016 with a NIL demand. However for the second quarter of 2007-2008 the Petitioner was assessed by an order dated 18th November 2010 raising a demand of ₹ 2,45,000/-. A perusal of the copy of the order enclosed as Annexure A-8 to W.P.(C) 8851/2018 reveals that it is a computer generated order where a penalty of ₹ 2,45,000/- is imposed on the Petitioner and the reasons give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjusted the said refund due by adjustment orders dated 18th January 2018 and 19th March 2018. A perusal of the said orders reveals that the adjustments were on account of fresh demands created for the aforementioned periods. Copies of these assessment orders dated 24th January 2017 enclosed as Annexure P-7 to the petition show that these demands were created by invoking Section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act, 2004. 10. These demands are plainly unsustainable in law in view of the decision of this Court in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi 25 (2017) DLT 615(DB). The Court has been shown copy of the order dated 10th January 2018 passed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP Civil 36750/2017 (Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input tax credit to a purchasing dealer who has bonafide entered into a purchase transaction with a registered selling dealer was issued a tax invoice reflecting the TIN number . In terms of the said decision, the above demands created for July 2012, December 2012 and May and June 2010 cannot be justified. The orders creating such demands simply state that the purchase made from a registered dealer could not be verified . This is not a good enough a reason to invoke Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act as explained by this Court in its judgment in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 13. Consequently this Court sets aside the fresh demands created by the Respondents for the aforementioned periods i.e. May 2010, June 2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
