https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752070 The SC held that the tax department cannot retain refund amounts beyond the mandatory timeline under Section 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and then adjust them against dues that crystallized after the refund period expired. The refunds should have been processed within two months from filing returns (by 31.05.2017 and 29.05.2019), but default notices were issued much later (2020-2022). Since the dues had not crystallized when refunds were due, the department was not justified in withholding refund amounts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the direction to refund amounts with interest under Section 42. en-us Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2024 21:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752070 The SC held that the tax department cannot retain refund amounts beyond the mandatory timeline under Section 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and then adjust them against dues that crystallized after the refund period expired. The refunds should have been processed within two months from filing returns (by 31.05.2017 and 29.05.2019), but default notices were issued much later (2020-2022). Since the dues had not crystallized when refunds were due, the department was not justified in withholding refund amounts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the direction to refund amounts with interest under Section 42. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752070