2021 (10) TMI 41 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Delhi VAT Act: Court Orders Authority to Decide Refund Claim with Interest

ARJUN INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS.

The court directed the Respondent Authority to decide on the petitioner's refund claim for specific tax periods under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, ... Refund of tax - violation of statutory provision - section 42 of DVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The concerned Respondent Authority is directed to decide the claim, as and when the same is preferred by the Petitioner, for refund as stated in the memo of this petition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, Government policies applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and on the basis of the evidence on record and also keeping in mind the law of limitation for getting the refund and also keeping in mind the principles of “unjust enrichment”. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Claim for refund under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act for specific tax periods.2. Grant of statutory interest on the claimed refund.3. Seeking any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of specific amounts for the tax periods - 4th Quarter 2013-2014 & 1st Quarter of 2017-2018 under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act. The court noted the petitioner's claim and directed the concerned Respondent Authority to decide on the refund claim in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. The decision was to be based on evidence, government policies, and the principle of 'unjust enrichment' as established by the Supreme Court in a previous case.2. In addition to the refund, the petitioner requested the grant of statutory interest at 6% as per Section 42 of the DVAT Act on the claimed refund amounts. The court acknowledged this request and instructed the Respondent Authority to consider the interest aspect while deciding on the refund claim. The decision-making process was to be conducted promptly and with due regard to the law of limitation for obtaining refunds.3. The court, after considering the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and evaluating the facts of the case, disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions. The judgment emphasized the need for the concerned authorities to handle the refund claim expeditiously, taking into account all relevant legal provisions and principles. The petitioner was granted relief in the form of a directive for the refund claim resolution, interest consideration, and adherence to legal requirements for processing refunds.