2019 (7) TMI 896 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders refund with interest, criticizes 'zero demand' practice, emphasizes timely processing.

The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, rejecting the Respondents' objections and directing the issuance of refund orders with interest. The judgment ... Refund to the Petitioner on the basis of ‘zero demand orders’ - DVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The fact of the matter is that the only ground on which refund has been refused to the Petitioner is the passing of ‘zero demand orders’, which have been enclosed by the Respondents themselves to the additional affidavit filed by them. The Court is further informed that the copies of such orders were handed over in Court on the first date of hearing of the writ petition itself. When repeatedly asked as to what is the purpose of passing such ‘zero demand’ orders, and then requiring the dealer to challenge such orders in accordance with law before the OHA, the learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to give any satisfactory answer - There is no purpose served in passing such ‘zero demand’ orders as they end up only multiplying litigation needlessly and delaying the grant of refunds to which the dealers are legitimately entitled. The pleas raised by the Respondents to deny the Petitioner the refunds are not sustainable in law and are hereby rejected - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Denial of refund based on 'zero demand orders'2. Allegations of suppression of material facts and laches by the PetitionerAnalysis:Issue 1: Denial of refund based on 'zero demand orders'The Petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 133,87,364 for various tax periods. The Respondents denied the refund citing 'zero demand orders' and alleged that the Petitioner did not furnish required information despite notices. The Court observed that passing 'zero demand' orders to deny refunds was frowned upon and had not ceased despite previous disapproval. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had not challenged the rejection of refund claims in accordance with the law. The Petitioner filed a review petition pointing out material facts not previously brought to the Court's notice, leading to the Court allowing the review petition and directing the matter to be heard on merits. The Respondents reiterated their stance through additional affidavits, but the Court found their objections unsustainable. The Court criticized the practice of passing 'zero demand' orders, emphasizing that it only increased unnecessary litigation and delayed legitimate refunds.Issue 2: Allegations of suppression of material facts and lachesThe Respondents raised allegations of suppression of material facts and laches against the Petitioner. However, the Court rejected these contentions, emphasizing that the review petition had been allowed, and the matter was to be heard on merits. The Court noted that refund orders for May and June 2010, though granted in 2018, contained errors, indicating a lack of proper assessment. The Court directed the Respondents to process the Petitioner's refund claims without objections and issue refund orders with due interest within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the Respondents being liable for disobedience of the Court's orders. The writ petition was allowed with no cost implications.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, rejecting the Respondents' objections and directing the issuance of refund orders with interest. The judgment highlighted the improper practice of 'zero demand orders' to deny refunds and emphasized the need for timely and fair processing of refund claims in accordance with the law.