9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer (AVATO) raising a demand of Rs. 1,23,13,745/- as tax for the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2016 against the Assessee/Petitioner, which is a registered dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner disclosed the inter-state sale made by it to a registered dealer in Haryana in the returns filed for the aforementioned period and produced the relevant 'C' forms issued in its favour. A default assessment of tax and interest under the CST Act was made and orders were passed by the AVATO on 5th July, 2017 in which the tax assessment was nil. In the said order, it was noted that the Petitioner deals in mobile ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner has any grievance regarding non-compliance with the above directions, it would be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms." 5. It appears that after passing the above order, instead of processing the Petitioner's case for refund, the AVATO undertook a fresh enquiry with the Haryana Authority. This is evident from the impugned order passed by the AVATO on 15th December, 2017 in which it is noted as under: "M/s DHANPATI PACKAGING, Tin No. 07037116322 has applied for the refund for the F. Y. 2016-17 in 1st Qtr for Rs. 20,55,088/-, 2nd QTR for Rs. 24,64,710/-, 3rd Qtr for Rs. 22,85,036/- and 4th Qtr for Rs. 24,29,324. For processing the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunities for the same, no counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent to the present petition. It may be noticed that notice was issued in the present petition way back on 14th December 2018 and an interim order was passed that no coercive steps would be taken against the Petitioner. 8. The Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is significant that the only ground for passing the impugned order is a cancellation of the 'C' form issued to the dealer in Haryana in respect of the inter-state transaction. The impugned order makes no mention of the date of cancellation of the said 'C' form. It is obvious that it has been cancelled subsequent to the assessments under the CST Act being finalised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
