2016 (4) TMI 227 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Orders Release of Deposited Amount, Quashes Assessment Notices, and Awards Costs

The court directed the release of the deposited amount to the Assessee, quashed the default assessment notices, and awarded costs to the Assessee. The ... Refund claim for AY 2009-10 - Engaged in business of providing DTH broadcasting services - Default assessment, hence invokation of powers under Section 32 of DVAT Act - Held that:- the Court finds no justification for the refund due to the Assessee being withheld by the DT&T any longer. The repeated attempts at re-opening the assessments for each of the months of AY 2009-10, notwithstanding the Assessee's claim for refund being accepted, appears to be an abuse of the process of law by the Respondents. There is no justification for the VATO to have issued notices of default assessment for AY 2009-10 when the objections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are admittedly pending before the OHA and in view of the clear bar under Rule 36 B (7) of the DVAT Rules read with Section 74-B of the DVAT Act. Therefore, the sum deposited by the Respondent in this Court along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be released by the Registry to the Petitioner forthwith through an authorized representative. - Decided in favour of petitioner Issues:1. Direction to disburse refund claimed by Assessee for AY 2009-10.2. Challenge to default assessment notices issued by VATO for each month of AY 2009-10.Analysis:1. The main issue in the judgment was the direction sought by the Assessee for the disbursement of the refund claimed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Assessee, engaged in DTH broadcasting services, filed a refund claim under the DVAT Act. Despite objections and multiple assessments, the Assessee's claim for refund was repeatedly challenged and delayed by the VATO. The court found no justification for withholding the refund, especially when the Assessee's claim had been accepted previously.2. The second issue involved challenges to default assessment notices issued by the VATO for each month of the AY 2009-10. The Assessee had objections pending against a previous order, and the VATO's actions were deemed an abuse of the legal process. The court highlighted that issuing default assessment notices while objections were pending was unjustified, especially considering the legal provisions that prevent review or reassessment in such circumstances.3. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and not abusing legal procedures. The court directed the release of the deposited amount to the Assessee, quashed the default assessment notices, and awarded costs to the Assessee. The decision underscored the need for authorities to adhere to the law and refrain from unnecessary delays or unjustified actions that impede legitimate claims for refunds.