TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with law before the OHA, the learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to give any satisfactory answer - There is no purpose served in passing such zero demand orders as they end up only multiplying litigation needlessly and delaying the grant of refunds to which the dealers are legitimately entitled. The pleas raised by the Respondents to deny the Petitioner the refunds are not sustainable in law and are hereby rejected - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(C) 9282/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - S. MURALIDHAR AND TALWANT SINGH JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Mr. Arif Ahmed Khan, Ms. Gaumi Grover and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In response to the notice issued in this petition, a reply was filed on 4th January, 2018 by the Respondents alleging suppression of material facts by the Petitioner. It is stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the refunds for the periods July, 2010 to March, 2011 and May, 2011 were disallowed by the then Assessing Authority on the ground that the dealer did not furnish the required information despite time being given to him under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act. It was accordingly contended that the Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It was stated that by 12th July, 2012, the Petitioner had not furnished any document pertaining to the above period i.e. July, 2010 to March, 2011 and May, 2011 and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were not brought to the notice of the Court. The new material documents revealed that for the tax period 2010-11, orders raising zero demand had been passed and since these were not available earlier to the Petitioner and there were no disputed facts, nothing survives for the OHA to decide . 8. A reply was filed to the review petition by the Respondents, inter alia, pointing out that a set of scanned orders were emailed to the counsel for the Petitioner on 26th October, 2017. It is pointed out that from the annexures to the review petition it was plain that the earlier assertions by the Petitioner about not receiving the orders were false. It was pointed out that along with the review petition, the Petitioner itself had su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was reiterated that there is suppression of material facts in the petition and that the claim was barred by laches. Again, copies of the orders sent to the counsel for the Petitioner were enclosed with this affidavit. 12. The Petitioner has on 18th January, 2019 filed a response to the above additional affidavit setting out the history of the present case. It is pointed out that the Respondent is relying on zero demand orders to deny refund and that in similar instances, this Court had negated such attempts. It is pointed out further that in another case involving a similar denial of refund on account of a zero demand order , viz., W.P.(C) No. 8849/2018 (Vijiman Electronic Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Trade Taxes), the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by laches . While he was not in a position to defend the zero demand orders , his contention was that the conduct of the Petitioner should disentitle it to any relief. 15. The above two aspects raised by the Respondents i.e. the suppression of material facts by the Petitioner, and laches , were raised by the Respondents even earlier in response to the review petition filed by the Petitioner. Nevertheless, this Court allowed the review petition in the manner indicated hereinbefore, thereby rejecting the above pleas. This Court was of the view that the writ petition had to be heard on merits. The parties were permitted to file additional affidavits. This liberty was utilized by the Respondents to file an additional affidav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of May and June, 2010, refund orders could be passed on January 2018, then clearly the Respondents were not allowing the plea of laches to come in the way of grant of refund. In any event, the orders denying refund were never ever communicated to the Petitioner till the filing of the present petition. 18. The fact of the matter is that the only ground on which refund has been refused to the Petitioner is the passing of zero demand orders , which have been enclosed by the Respondents themselves to the additional affidavit filed by them. The Court is further informed that the copies of such orders were handed over in Court on the first date of hearing of the writ petition itself. 19. When repeatedly asked as to what is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
