W.P.(C)--9204/2018. Case: M/S MALKIAT SINGH & SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAXES & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--9204/2018 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | May 21, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9204/2018
M/S MALKIAT SINGH & SONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arif Ahmed Khan with Mr.Varun
Nischal, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAXES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
O R D E R % 21.05.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
-
The Petitioner, which is a proprietorship registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 („DVAT Act‟), functioning under the jurisdiction the Value Added Tax Officer („VATO‟), Ward No.80 has filed this for a direction to the Respondents to issue to the Petitioner refund in the sum of Rs.1,58,99,041/- for the tax periods January to December 2010,
to March 2011, August 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2013-14 for returns as required under the DVAT Act were duly filed by the Petitioner.
-
It is pointed out that the legitimate refund payable to the Petitioner
W.P.(C) 9204/2018 Page
returns have been assessed/reassessed by the Special Objection Authority („SOHA‟) and Assessing Authority („AA‟)/VATO is sought denied by the Respondents by relying on the system generated zero demand orders issued mechanically by the VATO without application mind. Copies of such zero demand orders all dated 8th August 2012 been collectively enclosed with the petition as Annexure „P1‟.
-
Reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the order dated 6th August passed by this Court in WP(C) 1563 of 2018 ( Arora Enterprises Commissioner, Trade and Taxes ) which in turn has referred to orders dated 1st June 2016 in WP(C) 5032 of 2016 ( JBN Impex Pvt. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes ) and 21st November 2016 in 9252 of 2016 ( Aesthetic Packaging v. Commissioner of VAT ).
-
In response to the notice issued in the present petition a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in which inter alia its stated that refund claims for the periods April 2010 to December 2010 and January March 2011 and August 2011 have been already rejected by 13 orders of the AA dated 3rd August and 8th August 2012. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Petitioner filed two objection applications in DVAT-38 on 24th
2012 and 28th May 2015. Two separate orders were passed on 21st 2017 by the OHA setting aside the above orders of the AA and the cases to the AA for taking a fresh view. The Petitioner was asked present before the VATO within 7 days from the issue of the said According to the Respondents the Petitioner failed to appear before VATO pursuant to the above order of the OHA and consequently,
W.P.(C) 9204/2018 Page
reassessment could not be done.
-
As regards the demands created against the Petitioner in the Rs.50,07,665/-, the Respondent states...
To continue reading
Request your trial