9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 & CM APPL. 34475/2018-DIRECTIONS 2. These are two writ petitions by the same Assessee seeking directions to the Respondents to issue refunds for various periods which have been denied to the Petitioner. 3. The common facts are that during the period in question i.e. July 2010 to March 2011, June 2011 and May 2010, June 2010, July 2012 and December 2012 the Petitioner was registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ('DVAT Act') as well as the Central Sales Tax Act ('CST Act'). 4. It must be mentioned at the outset that for the subsequent period the Petitioner on its own by a letter dated 30th April 2013 sought cancellation of its registration and its registration has, at its request since been cancelled. However, this does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 of this Court in STA 12/2008 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s.BEHL Construction). 7. The Petitioner then approached the Assessing Authority i.e. the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) Ward-65 with a letter dated 7th August 2018 requesting for the refund to be issued with interest for the aforementioned period i.e. July to December 2010, January, February and March 2011 and June 2011. However, the VATO on 3rd August 2012 issued Zero Demand Orders for the aforementioned periods July 2010 to March 2011 and June 2011and sought to deny the refund. 8. The Respondent has been unable to explain how such 'Zero Demands' could be used to deny the refund legitimately due to the Petitioner. 9. W.P.(C) 8965/2018 concerns the refunds due to the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the competent authority. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the petitioner would move the High Court with necessary particulars for directions in this behalf for which liberty is granted, as prayed for. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." 11. It is pointed out by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Department that in the case of Arise India Ltd. a review petition has been filed in this Court claiming that there were certain purchase transactions that were not bonafide and that the said review petition is pending consideration in this Court. 12. The judgment of this Court in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) read down Section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act and precluded the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
