2022 (5) TMI 471 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner, orders release of refund under DVAT Act. Assessment orders quashed under CST Act.

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the impugned orders under the DVAT Act, 2004 were without jurisdiction. The court directed ... Validity of re-assessment order - release of refund claimed in the return filed for 2nd quarter 2016-2017 along with interest - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the four assessment orders dated 18.09.2018 passed in respect of the four quarters of FY 2016-17 were passed by the concerned officer, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - tax adjustment against refund vis-a-vis the fourth quarter for FY 2016-17 was also made; an aspect which is not disputed. The impugned orders dated 05.10.2019, which concern all the four quarters of the FY 2016-17, issued under the DVAT Act, in exercise of power conferred under Section 32 of the said Act, could not have been passed - the writ petition is allowed. Issues:1. Jurisdictional validity of the impugned orders dated 5.10.2019 under the DVAT Act, 2004.2. Validity of assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for FY 2016-2017.3. Refund claim and interest due for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders dated 5.10.2019 issued under sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act, seeking to set aside and quash the orders and the reassessment order. The petitioner contended that the jurisdiction exercised by the respondent was contrary to Section 7 of the DVAT Act, 2004, and Article 286 of the Constitution. The court noted that the assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for FY 2016-2017 had already been passed, and the demand raised was adjusted against the pending refund claim. The court held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, and the respondent was directed to release the refund claimed for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017 along with interest.2. The respondent agreed to withdraw the assessment orders dated 18.09.2018 passed for FY 2016-2017 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court observed that the impugned orders dated 5.10.2019, issued under the DVAT Act, for all four quarters of FY 2016-2017, could not have been passed as the assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act had already been issued. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondent to process the refund application for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017 within two weeks, including the interest due.3. The court noted the refund claimed in the return for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017, the number of days from the expiry of the claim date, and the interest due up to a specified date. The total refund amount, including interest, was specified. The court emphasized that any further delay in refund payment would result in an additional daily interest burden. The parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order, and the matter was listed for compliance on a specific date.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the jurisdictional issues regarding the impugned orders under the DVAT Act, 2004, the validity of assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the refund claim with interest for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and directing the respondent to process the refund promptly.