Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramky Infrastructure Limited vs Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes on 15 November, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15685/2022 & CM No.48826/2022
RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Jain, Mr Ramashish and
Mr Virag Tiwari, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Satyakam, ASC for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 15.11.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.48826/2022
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 15685/2022
2. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition, in a sense, articulate the grievance of the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the same are set forth hereafter:
"(a) direct the respondent to pass the refund order and credit the refund of Rs.54,58,897/- into the account of the petitioner;
(b) direct the respondent to release interest beginning from 1.6.2015 till the date of payment of refund in terms of Section 42(1). As on date (11.11.2022), the component of interest is Rs.24,39,903/- which continues to mount @ Rs.897.35 per day;
W.P.(C) 15685/2022 page 1 of 4
(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction."
3. The record shows that the refund concerns the fourth quarter of Financial Year (FY) 2013-2014. In the return filed on 27.05.2014, the petitioner, after adjusting liabilities, had claimed refund amounting to Rs.2,59,88,302/-.
3.1. This return was revised on 31.03.2015, whereby the claim for refund was enhanced to Rs.2,64,77,458/-.
4. Concededly, notices concerning assessment of tax, interest and penalty framed under Sections 32 and 33 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [in short "2004 Act"] were issued on 07.06.2014 and 15.06.2015 respectively.
4.1. This resulted in a demand being raised amounting to Rs.54,58,897/-. Besides this, penalty amounting to Rs.32,600/- was also imposed.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner filed objections against the said demand, which were allowed on 12.07.2022.
6. In the interregnum, the petitioner had approached this court by way of a writ petition, as also by way of contempt petition. These orders have lost much of their significance because of the facts and circumstances adverted to hereinabove.
7. Mr Rajesh Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has also drawn our attention to Annexure P-5, which is appended on page 32 of the case file, which shows that certain demands were raised in 2018, concerning 2013. The details, as set out in Annexure P-5, are set forth hereafter:
W.P.(C) 15685/2022 page 2 of 4
RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
TIN 07510324123
Tax Total Demand Obj. Obj. Remarks
Period Demand- Date Filling Filling
As per Date Ref. No.
Portal
Annual 6,50,434/- 04/09/2018 02/11/2018 388999 Hearing
2013 (Tax & Pending
Interest)
Annual 3,93,484/- 04/09/2018 02/11/2018 389000 -Do-
2013 (Penalty)
7.1. As would be evident, the objections qua those demands appear to have been filed which, we are told, are pending consideration.
8. The total amount claimed towards tax, interest and penalty for 2013 by the respondents/revenue is Rs.10,43,918/- [Rs.6,50,434/- + Rs.3,93,484/-].
9. Mr Jain says that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount claimed in the instant writ petition with interest running from 01.06.2015.
10. Issue notice to the respondents.
10.1. Mr Satyakam accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
11. Mr Satyakam will return with instructions on the next date of hearing.
11.1. In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, a counter- affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.
12. We may note that if what has been averred before us by the petitioner W.P.(C) 15685/2022 page 3 of 4 is correct, even if the outstanding amount is adjusted as is, there will be monies due to the petitioner by way of refund as well as interest.
13. We may also note that Mr Satyakam seeks to place reliance on Rule 57, read with Rule 34 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 [in short "Rules"] in support of his plea that the petitioner would have to apply for refund under DVAT -21.
13.1 This aspect of the matter will have to be examined on the next date of hearing.
14. Given this position, the petitioner is given liberty to file DVAT-21, without prejudice to its rights and contentions both with regard to the interpretation to be placed on the aforementioned provisions cited by Mr Satyakam and the assertions made in the writ petition.
15. List the matter on 20.01.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J NOVEMBER 15, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 15685/2022 page 4 of 4