Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Commissioner Of Value Added Tax vs Dharam Pal Premchand Ltd on 27 February, 2023

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                          $~2
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     ST.APPL. 14/2008
                                COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX
                                                                 ..... Appellant
                                            Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC and
                                                     Ms.    Pallavii     Singh,
                                                     Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                DHARAM PAL PREMCHAND LTD                    ..... Respondent
                                                    Through:     Ms. Sheena Taqui, Ms.
                                                                 Akansha Saini and Ms.
                                                                 Bina Gupta, Advocates.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                                    ORDER

% 27.02.2023 CM APPL. 55527/2022

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent praying that the directions be issued to the appellant to renew the FDR in terms of the order dated 15.09.2008.

2. By the said order, the above captioned appeal was admitted and the questions of law required to be decided by this court, were framed. This court had also directed the appellant to place the amount of money for which the refund is sought "in a separate fixed deposit, initially for a period of three years, so that the same can earn interest at the applicable bank rates". It was also clarified that the said direction would be subject to the final order that may be passed in the appeal.

3. Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Signature Not Verified states that in compliance with the said order, the appellant had Digitally Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR Signing Date:01.03.2023 15:37:07 prepared an FDR for amount of ₹58,19,950/-, which was valid for a period of 36 months w.e.f. 22.12.2008 to 22.12.2011. He states that the said FDR has since matured but has not been renewed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that on enquiry from the Registry, the respondent has been informed that the appellant had not deposited the FDR with the Registry of this Court.

5. Be that as it may, it is clear that in terms of order dated 15.09.2008, the appellant was required to maintain the FDR in order to gain interest.

6. Mr. Satyakam has handed over a photo copy of an FDR issued by State Bank of India (Receipt No. :TDCS/0260513377). The same indicates that an amount of ₹58,19,950/- was paid by the Commissioner (Trade & Taxes) and was kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 36 months. The maturity value is reflected as ₹76,79,570/-.

7. The appellant is directed to take necessary steps to renew the said FDR from the date it matured, that is, from 22.12.2011 and file confirmation of the same with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today.

8. This application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 27, 2023 "SK"