9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are admittedly pending before the OHA and in view of the clear bar under Rule 36 B (7) of the DVAT Rules read with Section 74-B of the DVAT Act. Therefore, the sum deposited by the Respondent in this Court along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be released by the Registry to the Petitioner forthwith through an authorized representative. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W. P. (C) 6510/2014 & CM APPL. 3898/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Additional Standing counsel W.P.(C) 12151/2015 CM APPL. 32261/2015, W.P.(C) 123 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is stated that the goods stored in various warehouses are transferred on right to use basis to customers through distributors while the ownership thereof vests with the Assessee. 4. The Assessee had filed a refund claim for ₹ 20,67,03,510 in the value added tax return on 28th April 2010 under the provisions of DVAT Act. On 8th July 2010 the Assessee was asked by the VATO to produce documents, which the Assessee complied with by letter dated 17th July 2010. 5. On 4th November 2010 the Assessee revised its VAT return by marginally reducing the refund claim to ₹ 20,59, 55,250. On 26th November 2010, a notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 of the Act was issued by the VATO creating a demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as allowed in three equal yearly instalments. Accordingly, ₹ 6,25,20,580 was held eligible to be claimed for the AY 2009-10. The balance was permitted to be allowed as refund into equal instalments of the same amount during 2010-11 and 2011-12. 9. On 11th July 2012, a notice under Section 59 of the DVAT Act was issued by the VATO to the Assessee again calling for documentary evidence with respect to the discrepancy pointed out in the special audit report. The Assessee states that none of the queries raised by the VATO pertained to its refund claim. Nevertheless, the Assessee furnished the details as called for by the VATO. 10. The VATO (Vat Audit) issued a further notice on 10th December 2012 to the Assessee seeking information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Special Commissioner, in response to the present petition, it is admitted that the order dated 19th September 2013 of the VATO is subject matter of objections . It is contended that in view of the aforementioned order, no refund is due to the Assessee in response to the objections. 13. In the rejoinder it is pointed out by the Assessee that its revised returns claiming refund have been accepted by the VATO by order dated 19 th September 2013 and therefore there was no question of rejection of the refund claim of the Assessee. Moreover, the three previous orders passed by the VATO rejecting the refund claimed have been set aside by the OHA and those orders have become final. 14. In the above circumstances, it is urged b the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r an appeal under Section 76 against the original assessment or reassessment order is pending. He pointed out that inasmuch as the Assessee has asserted that its objections filed on 18th November 2013 were still pending consideration, the Respondents required some more time to verify from its record whether such objections were in fact pending. He fairly stated that if indeed those objections are pending then in terms of Section 74B of the DVAT Act read with Rule 36-B (7) of the DVAT Rules, no notice of default assessment could have been issued. He however sought some more time to verify if the objections were indeed pending. 17. The Court is not inclined to grant further time to the Respondents for the above purpose. Rule 36B (7) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears to be an abuse of the process of law by the Respondents. 20. There is no justification for the VATO to have issued notices of default assessment for AY 2009-10 when the objections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are admittedly pending before the OHA and in view of the clear bar under Rule 36 B (7) of the DVAT Rules read with Section 74-B of the DVAT Act. 21. For the above reasons, the Court directs that the sum deposited by the Respondent in this Court along with interest accrued thereon should be released by the Registry to the Petitioner Assessee forthwith through an authorized representative. 22. Further each the notices of default assessment issued under Section 32 of the DVAT Act for each of the months of AY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
