Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

A M Electricals vs Commissioner Of State Goods And Service ... on 17 April, 2023

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Tushar Rao Gedela

                          $~41
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 4785/2023 & CM APPL. 18490/2023
                               A M ELECTRICALS                             ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Ramanand Roy and
                                                         Mr. Mayank, Advs.
                                                versus

                               COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX &
                               ANR. & ORS.                               ..... Respondent
                                            Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Addl. Standing
                                                       Counsel with Ms. Shilpa Singh, Adv.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                            ORDER

% 17.04.2023 CM APPL. 18490/2023

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4785/2023

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 17.02.2023, whereby the petitioner's application for carrying forward of input tax credit by filing the GST Trans-1 Form was rejected on the ground that the same pertains to statutory forms, which were received after 27.12.2017.

3. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, submits that the petitioner has also filed an application for refund under Form DVAT-21, which is yet to be processed.

4. It is the petitioner's case that the refund of tax is to be made in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.04.2023 cash (pursuant to Form DVAT-21) under the DVAT regime, or the petitioner is required to be permitted to carry forward the same as input tax credit under the GST regime. The petitioner's request for carry forward of input tax credit has been rejected.

5. Mr. Aggarwal states that the concerned authority shall process the petitioner's application for refund (DVAT-21) by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

6. Mr Mahana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied with the said order if all the rights and contentions of the petitioner are reserved.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the concerned authority to decide the petitioner's application for refund (DVAT-21) within a period of eight weeks from today after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

8. It is clarified that the all rights and the contentions of the parties are reserved. The disposal of this petition would not preclude the petitioner from filing afresh if its grievance is not addressed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J APRIL 17, 2023/AT Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.04.2023