9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lustratively, reference may be made to the orders dated 21st November, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.9252/2016 (Aesthetic Packaging v. Commissioner of VAT) and 6th August, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.1563/2018 (M/s Arora Enterprises v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes). Yet, the practice has not stopped. 3. This petition itself has a chequered history. The Petitioner is a proprietorship registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ('DVAT Act') as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('CST Act'). The Court is informed that the Petitioner has since sought cancellation of the CST registration. The Petitioner filed the present petition aggrieved by the denial of refund in the total sum of Rs. 133,87,364/-, in respect of the tax periods from May to December, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for refund. 6. The Court initially passed an order on 5th July, 2018 disposing of the present writ petition, inter alia, observing that if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the adjudication of its claims for refund "and having regard to its assertions that the orders were never received by it", it was open to the Petitioner "to seek copies of such order or orders and prefer appeals". It was observed that in the event that the Petitioner preferred the appeals within 30 days of receipt of such orders, they would be considered by the Objection Hearing Authority ('OHA') on their merits. It was noted in the order that the copies of the orders rejecting the refunds claims for the periods July, 2010 to March, 2011 "are being handed over to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity (hereafter 'OHA'). It is apparent from the order issued at the relevant time that the so-called assessments were completed without any demand since the VATO indicated 'zero' demand. In these circumstances, the merits of the petition need to be gone into - including as to whether the Court should or should not entertain the question of refund belatedly. Review petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly." 10. By the same order, the Court also permitted the parties to file further affidavits "if needed". 11. Pursuant thereto, the Respondents filed an additional affidavit on 15th December, 2018. This affidavit basically reiterated the earlier stand of the Respondents that the refunds claims already stood rejected. Ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been issued without interest on the refund amount. This was in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in IJM Corporation Berhad v. CT&T (2018) 48 GSTR 102 (Del). It is pointed out that in the refund order from May, 2010, the Respondents had illegally deducted up-to-date interest @ 15% per annum from 2010 onwards while, at the same time, denying the Petitioner statutory interest @ 6% on account of delay. 13. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated what has been urged in the main petition, and the additional affidavit, which has been referred to hereinbefore. He submitted that there was no justification in law for denying refund on the basis of such 'zero deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial facts having been impliedly rejected by this Court earlier, cannot be permitted to be raised again in these proceedings. 17. Even otherwise the plea of laches raised by the Respondents seems to be futile. On their own showing, the Respondents have for two periods i.e. May, 2010 and June, 2010, granted refunds to this very Petitioner by passing separate orders in January 2018. However, the order granting refund for May, 2010 is strange. While on the one hand, it accepts the plea for refund, it utilizes that opportunity to create a demand in the 'remarks column' and additionally charges interest on the Petitioner for more than 10 years. The Court can only speculate that this reveals either a total non-application of mind by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnologies Inc. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes) are all within the knowledge of the Respondents. 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. 20. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the pleas raised by the Respondents to deny the Petitioner the refunds are not sustainable in law and are hereby rejected. 21. The question now remains as to the consequential orders that are required to be passed. Of the entire period for which refund has been claimed in the present petition, orders granting refund have been passed only for two months i.e. May and June, 2010, and that too erroneously. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
