Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Electro System Devices vs Commissioner, Trade And Taxes & Anr on 23 February, 2023

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                   $~248
                   *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                   +      W.P.(C) 14322/2022
                          ELECTRO SYSTEM DEVICES          ..... Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr Kundan Lal Gupta,
                                                Advocate.

                                             versus

                          COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES
                          & ANR.                            ..... Respondents
                                       Through: Mr Rajeev Aggarwal,
                                                  Advocate.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                       ORDER

% 23.02.2023

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying that the respondents be directed to refund an amount of ₹10,57,174/- along with interest. The petitioner claims that it had initially filed a return for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2013-14 on 25.04.2014. Thereafter, on 28.11.2004, the petitioner had filed a revised return claiming a refund of ₹10,57,174/-.

2. The respondent issued a notice dated 06.09.2016 under Section 59 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter 'the DVAT Act'), which was followed by a notice for default assessment dated 23.03.2018. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 74 of the DVAT Act read with Rule 52 of the DVAT Rules objecting to the default assessment. The final assessment was framed on 14.09.2018 raising a 'Nil' demand.

3. It is the petitioner's case that it continued to pursue the respondents for the refund due but the same has not been processed.

4. Curiously, the respondents issued another notice dated 25.05.2019 under Section 59 of the DVAT Act once again seeking certain documents. The petitioner responded to the said notice pointing out that all documents as sought for had already been furnished. Thereafter, on 20.01.2020, the petitioner furnished another letter apprising the respondents regarding the concluded assessment.

5. Apparently, respondent no.2 acknowledged that the notice dated 25.05.2019, issued under Section 59 of the DVAT Act, was erroneously issued and assured the petitioner that its application for refund would be expeditiously processed.

6. Since the petitioner's request for refund was not processed, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. During the course of the proceedings, this Court was informed that an amount of ₹5,88,297/- had already been refunded to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said refund is incomplete. In addition, the said amount has been paid without any interest.

8. Mr Rajeev Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that there is a problem in processing the refund as the system now requires a fresh form (DVAT 21) to be filed for processing the refund. This Court has some reservations whether the respondent can insist on repeated applications; however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that a request in the prescribed form (DVAT 21) has already been filed as requested by the respondents.

9. Mr Aggarwal submits that the said request would now be processed expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from today.

10. The respondents are bound down to the said statement.

11. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is disposed of.

12. It is clarified that all rights of the petitioner are reserved. The petitioner is at liberty to apply, if the refund is not processed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 23, 2023 RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:01.03.2023