2021 (4) TMI 1047 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund claim - non-production of C-Form - Contempt petition filed or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed a contempt petition for the purported violation of the directions contained in the aforementioned order dated 25.09.2017. The petitioner, nearly after 19 months or so, has filed the instant writ petition - Prima facie, the petitioner appears to be guilty of procrastination. It appears that the petitioner has, possibly, preferred the instant writ petition, as the petitioner cannot, now, take recourse to a statutory remedy. List the matter on 25.05.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of demand notices dated 13.04.2018 and 18.04.2018.
2. Compliance with court directions issued in previous writ petition.
3. Delay in filing the current writ petition.
4. Allegation of adjustment of refund by respondents.
5. Request for reliance on a judgment supporting the petitioner's case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash demand notices dated 13.04.2018 and 18.04.2018. The court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the court via a writ petition seeking a refund for specific quarters. A coordinate Bench had issued directions regarding the refund, subject to compliance with certain conditions. However, the respondents issued the impugned demand notices instead of complying with the court's directions from the previous petition.

2. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed a contempt petition for the alleged violation of the directions issued in the previous order dated 25.09.2017. Despite the lapse of approximately 19 months, the petitioner filed the current writ petition. The court expressed concerns about the petitioner's procrastination and suggested that the petitioner might have filed the instant writ petition due to the unavailability of a statutory remedy.

3. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Nitin Gulati, alleged that the refund was adjusted by the respondents. The court noted that a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner in the previous writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a contempt petition. However, no contempt petition was filed. The court highlighted the delay in seeking redress and suggested that the petitioner might be at fault for the delay.

4. Mr. Gulati, representing the petitioner, mentioned relying on a judgment by a coordinate bench supporting the petitioner's case. He requested an opportunity to submit the judgment, which was granted by the court. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be served on Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, representing the respondents, and listed the matter for further proceedings on 25.05.2021.

This analysis provides a detailed overview of the issues raised in the judgment, including the quashing of demand notices, compliance with court directions, delay in filing the petition, allegations of refund adjustment, and the request for reliance on a supportive judgment. The court's observations and directions regarding each issue are outlined to offer a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.