9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 when the amount has been sanctioned and credited to the account of the Petitioner. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. From the facts on which there is no dispute and which so stand disclosed in the writ petition, it would appear that Petitioner was engaged in the business of transporting goods. A survey was conducted at the godowns of the Petitioner by the Officers of the Department on 09.03.2006. A notice was issued calling upon the relevant records stated therein. Default Assessments were framed on 23.03.2006 imposing tax of Rs. 4,91,096/- and penalty under section 86 (19) and under Section 86 (14) amounting to Rs. 4,91,096/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. 3. The assessment was challenged before Objections Hearing Authority ["OHA"] which was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2006. After the said order, Petitioner deposited disputed amount of tax penalty vide challans dated 27.04.2006. 4. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred appeals before the Delhi Value Added Tax ["DVAT"] Appellate Tribunal but the same were partially allowed, whereby, only the penalty imposed under Section 86 (19) was set aside. 5. Petitioner preferred VAT Appeal before this Court. Vide order dated 27.03.2023, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prescribed under the DVAT Act is liable to be set aside/quashed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a. Redihot Electricals vs. UOI & Ors. 1989 SCC OnLine Del 157. b. Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine P & H 11631 c. Union of India through Director of Income Tax vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 335 12. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has argued that the term, employed in Sections 38 and 42 of the DVAT Act is "person" and not "dealer", which would certainly include within its fold any person including the transporter and, therefore, to give a restricted meaning to the word, "person", occurring in Sections 38 and 42 of the DVAT Act would be contrary to the intention of the legislature, which has explicitly and consciously employed the term, "person" and not "dealer" and if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would be tantamount to doing damage to the literal meaning of the said provisions as well as intention of legislature in enacting the said provisions. It is argued that Sections 38 and 42 have a larger scope to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation started in this Court vide W.P. (C) 9409/2023, wherein this Court has passed the following order dated 18.07.2023:- "3. This petition impugns the order of 03 July 2023 in terms of which although the competent authority has granted refund, the interest on alleged delayed disbursal thereof had been fixed and restricted to the rates as prescribed under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act 2004 [DVAT Act]. 4. It becomes pertinent to note that dealing with the prayer for refund itself, the Court had while entertaining an earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner passed the following order:- 1. "This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing and compelling the respondents to issue the amount of RS. 10,32,138/- illegally and wrongfully extracted from the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest and compensation thereon in accordance with law. 2. The claim for refund arises in the backdrop of a final order rendered by the Tribunal on 10 May 2023. Admittedly, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not liable to be recognised or treated as a "dealer" und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isbursal of the refund afresh. 6. Accordingly and in light of the statement so made, the impugned order dated 03 July 2023 insofar as it restricts the rate of interest as prescribed under the DVAT Act shall stand set aside and quashed. The concerned authorities shall attend to the claim for interest in accordance with the observations as appearing in the order of the Court dated 03 July 2023. The competent authority shall pass a speaking order in this respect within a period of two weeks from today. The writ petition shall stand allowed and disposed of on the above terms." 16. Consequent to the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2023, the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 was passed by GSTO. Based on the High Court orders dated 03.07.2023 and 18.07.2023, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that High Court in such orders has issued directions for grant of interest at the rate as claimed and not at the rate as specified under the DVAT Act. However, we are not convinced with such argument, inasmuch as, it is evident that the Court merely directed the authority to consider the contention of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 17. On the basis of rival submissions, the limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act, or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956): PROVIDED FURTHER that if the amount of such refund is enhanced or reduced, as the case may be, such interest shall be enhanced or reduced accordingly. Explanation.- If the delay in granting the refund is attributable to the said person, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable." 20. The legislature has employed the word "person" and not "dealer" in Section 38 & 42 of the DVAT Act. The use of word "person" instead of "dealer" reflects that the intention of the legislature is to include the persons other than the dealers for the benefit of grant of refund and interest under Section 38 & 42 of the DVAT Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 38 & 42 of the DVAT Act would be applicable to the petitioner/transporter. 21. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for petitioner regards the payment of interest from the date of deposit, the decisions in the case of Roadmaster (supra) and Tata Chemicals (supra) are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the decisions in both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
