9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1168 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund claim by carry forward of the same to the next tax period - transitional ITC to the electronic credit ledger - Section 5 (3) and Sections 6 and 8 of the CST Act, 1956 - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed case between the parties that the application for refund alongwith interest filed by the Petitioner is pending consideration with the Respondents, despite a reminder application dated 23.07.2021. It is incumbent upon the Respondents to take a decision on the application for refund. The concerned Respondent(s) are directed to decide the claim of the Petitioner for refund for the relevant period, in accordance with law and also keeping in mind the principle of unjust enrichment - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Refund of VAT amount along with interest under Section 42 of DVAT Act for the first quarter of 2017-18. Analysis: The petitioner sought a refund of ?25,75,818/- along with interest under Section 42 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, for the first quarter of 2017-18. The petitioner claimed a refund of ?55,04,128/- by carrying it forward to the next tax period. However, due to the replacement of DVAT Act by the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner only carried over a refund of ?29,28,310/- as transitional ITC. The petitioner filed an application regarding the non-issuance of the pending refund, but no action was taken by the respondents. Two notices of default assessment of tax and interest under CST Act were issued by the respondents, further complicating the matter. The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide on the refund claim expeditiously, considering the principle of "unjust enrichment" as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court noted that despite the pending application for refund with interest, the respondents had not taken any action. The petitioner had followed up with reminder applications, but the refund was still not granted. The respondents acknowledged issuing notices of default assessment of tax and interest under the CST Act. However, the court highlighted that it was crucial for the respondents to make a decision on the refund application promptly. The court directed the concerned respondents to decide on the petitioner's refund claim for the relevant period in accordance with the law and the principle of "unjust enrichment" as established by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized the need for an expeditious resolution of the matter, considering the petitioner's entitlement to the refund and interest under the DVAT Act. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, highlighting the importance of the respondents deciding on the petitioner's refund claim promptly and in compliance with the law. The court's decision was based on the principle of "unjust enrichment" and the petitioner's legal entitlement to the refund and interest under the DVAT Act. The judgment underscored the need for a timely resolution of the refund claim, directing the concerned respondents to act expeditiously and in accordance with the legal principles outlined during the proceedings.
|
