9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this the respondents have not paid the refund amounts. Going through the provisions of the statute it becomes clear that the refunds are to be paid promptly and the decisions are to be taken as per the time schedule prescribed in the Act - Amount to be refunded subject to furnishment of bank guarantee - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 4220/2012, C. M. APPL. 2026/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Appearance not given. For the Respondents : Ms. Latika Chaudhry, Advocate. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The petitioner s grievance before this Court is that a sum of Rs. 2,55,11,598/- has to be paid to it by the respondents (here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, a retrospective amendment has been made enabling this Court to condone the delay. These aspects were not being disputed by the petitioner. 5. On 14.01.2013, this Court made the following directions: The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order of the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, the amounts due to them are not being refunded. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there are other periods for which the refund claims have been made but the refunds are not being granted despite the fact that there are no default assessment orders within the stipulated period of one month from the filing of the return nor is there any show cause notice issued under section 59 of the DVAT Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Section 38(3)(a), the time taken to, interalia, furnish additional information sought under Section 59 shall be excluded. It is obvious that exclusion can only be when the period of limitation itself has not run out. The consequence of this discussion is that the notice under Section 59 in connection with refund has to be issued within the period of two months stipulated in Section 38(3)(a)(ii). As a result, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that because of issuance of notice under Section 59 of the said Act, albeit beyond the prescribed time, the refund was not payable, is not tenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case also, no notice under section 59 was issued during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art and a remand order was made on 02.01.2014. This in turn would mean that the VAT Department s appeal is at large and has to be decided both on the question of limitation as well as the merits. Given these set of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in retaining the amounts paid by the respondents in this Court. As on date, the order of the VAT Tribunal has not been set aside. At the same time, the setting-aside of the VAT Department s previous determination in Behl Constructions (supra) would mean that the objection would have to be heard and adjudicated on the merits. Consequently, it is hereby directed that the amounts deposited in Court shall be refunded to the petitioner subject to its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
