TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders respondents to pay petitioner refunds totaling Rs. 41,89,487 + interest within 4 weeks</h1> <h3>Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax and another</h3> Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax and another - [2010] 31 VST 475 (Del) Issues Involved:1. Refund of the amount of Rs. 41,89,487 along with interest.2. Quashing of the impugned notice dated April 9, 2010, under section 58A for special audit.3. Release of documents/records seized by way of illegal search.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refund of the amount of Rs. 41,89,487 along with interest:The petitioner, engaged in the business of trading in mobile phones, sought the refund of Rs. 41,89,487 along with interest due to the excess tax paid under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The petitioner limited the submissions to this issue and sought liberty to raise other issues separately.The petitioner claimed entitlement to refunds for the quarters of 2008-09, as follows:- Rs. 12,99,718 for the period 1.7.2008 to 30.9.2008.- Rs. 15,54,232 for the period 1.10.2008 to 31.12.2008.- Rs. 13,35,537 for the period 1.1.2009 to 31.3.2009.Section 38 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, mandates that refunds be made within two months of filing the quarterly returns. The petitioner opted for cash refunds rather than carrying forward the amount as a tax credit.First Refund Claim (Rs. 12,99,718):The petitioner's return was filed on November 3, 2008, and the refund was due by January 2, 2009. The Commissioner could demand security within 15 days of the return, i.e., by November 18, 2008, but no formal demand was made. An oral request for a security of Rs. 5 lacs was complied with by the petitioner. Despite this, the refund was not paid. The court held that the refund should be paid forthwith along with interest as per section 42 of the Act.Second Refund Claim (Rs. 15,54,232):A notice under section 59 was purportedly issued on June 9, 2009, but the petitioner claimed it was not received. The address on the notice differed from the petitioner's address. The court concluded that the notice was not served and even if it was, it was issued beyond the stipulated period, making it invalid for withholding the refund. The refund was due within two months of the return filed on January 28, 2009.Third Refund Claim (Rs. 13,35,537):The return was filed on April 28, 2009, and the refund was due by June 27, 2009. No demand for security or notice under section 59 was issued. The court found no reason for withholding the refund.The court directed that all three refunds, along with interest, be paid to the petitioner within four weeks.2. Quashing of the impugned notice dated April 9, 2010, under section 58A for special audit:The petitioner sought to quash the notice dated April 9, 2010, under section 58A for a special audit. However, the petitioner limited the submissions to the refund issue and reserved the right to address this issue in separate proceedings. The court granted this liberty.3. Release of documents/records seized by way of illegal search:The petitioner also sought the release of documents/records seized by way of an illegal search. This issue was not addressed in this judgment as the petitioner reserved the right to raise it in separate proceedings. The court granted this liberty.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to pay the refunds due to the petitioner along with interest within four weeks. The petitioner was granted the liberty to address the other issues in separate proceedings.
TaxTMI 