9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner(s): Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Mr. Rajat Mittal and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advs. For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Ganesh Sr. Adv. with Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. CORAM:- S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. This Court had heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner's claim is that despite the directions of the Court, its refund claim on account of the default assessments, made for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being W.P.(C) 6510/2014 which resulted in a direction to the respondents to discharge the obligation of refund of the amount. 4. In these circumstances, it is contended that despite the finality of the Court directions, the respondent/VAT Department is continuing to harass the petitioner with several queries and has, in fact, passed further orders rejecting the refund claims. 5. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are sold at a loss in ordinary course of business. 8. The petitioner /dealer has contested the denial of refund for 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appeal is pending before VAT Tribunal. 9. Having regard to this position and taking note of the interpretation of Section 10(5) and interpretation of Rule 6A, Court is of the opinion that direction to the respondent to refund the entire amount is not exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure i.e. show cause notice, explaining the proper reason as to why such a quantum of penalty is required to be imposed. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that this grievance can be addressed afresh. 12. In these circumstances, the penalty orders dated 09.02.2015 and 10.02.2015 are hereby quashed. The respondent/VAT authorities are directed to pass penalty order after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
