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>VAT refund delay triggers automatic 6% interest under Section 42(1) despite department's investigation claims</h1> <h3>Mangalam Traders Versus Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax Department of Trade And Taxes And Anr</h3> Mangalam Traders Versus Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax Department of Trade And Taxes And Anr - 2024:DHC:5621 - DB Issues Involved:1. Validity of the impugned orders dated 11-04-2023, 10-05-2023, and 03-10-2023.2. Entitlement to interest on delayed tax refunds under the DVAT Act.3. Claim for exemplary damages due to alleged mala-fide actions by the Respondents.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Impugned Orders:The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 11-04-2023, 10-05-2023, and 03-10-2023, which rejected their claim for interest on delayed refunds. The court examined the factual background, noting that the petitioner had filed quarterly returns for the 4th quarter of AY 2016-17 and the 1st quarter of AY 2017-18, claiming refunds based on 'C' Forms. The refunds were delayed due to investigations and legal issues, which were ultimately resolved in favor of the petitioner by the High Court. The court found that the impugned orders were not justified as they failed to acknowledge the statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed refunds as per Section 42 of the DVAT Act.2. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Tax Refunds:The central issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed tax refunds under the DVAT Act. The court referred to Sections 38 and 42 of the DVAT Act, which mandate the Commissioner to refund excess tax paid and to pay interest if the refund is delayed. The court emphasized that the statutory guidelines for granting refunds are mandatory, not discretionary, and cited previous judgments affirming this position. It was noted that the petitioner had filed returns on 01.06.2017 and 29.07.2017, making the refunds due by 01.08.2017 and 29.09.2017, respectively. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to interest from these dates as per Section 38 (3) (a) (ii) and Section 42 (1) of the DVAT Act.3. Claim for Exemplary Damages:The petitioner also sought exemplary damages, alleging that the Respondents acted in a mala-fide and colorable exercise of power by withholding the interest. However, the court did not specifically address the claim for exemplary damages in the judgment. The focus remained on the statutory entitlement to interest on delayed refunds.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned orders dated 11-04-2023, 10-05-2023, and 03-10-2023, ruling that the petitioner is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the refund fell due. The Respondents were directed to effect the refund within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
TaxTMI 