9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,785/-. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to release the interest amounting to Rs. 37,39,329 accrued as of 26th August, 2020 in accordance with Section 42(1) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [for short 'DVAT Act']. 3. Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is contrary to the principle of judicial discipline in particular in petitioner's own case Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. JV Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (2019) 67 GSTR 490 (Del), wherein this Court, with respect to the part of the refund for the same tax period i.e. fourth quarter of 2014-15, had held the interest to accrue with effect from 11th September, 2015. He points out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority. He points out that in similar facts in ITD-ITD CEM JV vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes WP(C) 12018/2019, a coordinate bench of this Court had refused to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. 7. He also states that the petitioner had been asked to file DVAT-21 in accordance with the procedure under Rule 34(4) of the DVAT Rules, 2005 and it was not due to any technical glitch as alleged by the petitioner. 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that it will be a travesty of justice, if the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is relegated to the appellate remedy. He contends that there will be a bar on appeal/objection against the impugned order as the same has been passed 'g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sanjeev Ahuja is equivalent in rank to the Special Commissioner (Spl. Zone), who had passed the impugned order and has the authority/jurisdiction to decide the objections. In support of his submission, he relies upon Section 68(4) of the DVAT Act. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present case does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, as an efficacious alternative remedy is available with the petitioner under Section of 74 of DAVT Act. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality like violation of principle of natural justice or of fundamental rights in the impugned order. 13. Further, when the previous writ petition filed by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
