TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....329/2015 & CM APPL. 32746/2015, W.P.(C) 12330/2015 & CM APPL. 32749/2015, W.P.(C) 231/2016 & CM APPL. 986/2016, W.P.(C) 297/2016 & CM APPL. 1220/2016, W.P.(C) 298/2016 & CM APPL. 1223/2016 ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The main prayer in W.P. (C) No. 6510 of 2014 by Dish TV India Ltd. (hereafter the 'Assessee') is for a direction to the Department of Trade and Taxes (DT&T), Government of NCT of Delhi to disburse the amount claimed by the Assessee towards refund for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2009-10, along with the applicable interest. 2. The challenge in the remaining writ petitions by the same Assessee is to notices of default assessment of tax and interest issued by the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) on 18th November 2015 under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said notice of default assessment and the Assessing Authority ('AA'), i.e., the VATO was directed to consider the fresh claim filed by the Petitioner. 7. By order dated 12th September 2011, the VATO once again rejected the refund claim of the Assessee. Against this order, objections were filed by the Assessee on 20th October 2011 before the OHA. On 24th June 2013, the order dated 12th September 2011 was set aside by the OHA and again the matter was remanded to the VATO. 8. Meanwhile, a special audit was undertaken. The special auditor submitted a report on 12th June 2012, raising an objection that the Assessee was capitalizing the cost of goods sold to the customers, that therefore such goods were in the nature of capital goods and that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the subsequent AYs. On 9th January 2013, the VATO again issued a notice for personal hearing and the Assessee was called to furnish further documents. This was also complied with by the Assessee. 11. After the OHA had by its order dated 24th June 2013 allowed the Assessee's objections against the order of the VATO dated 12th September 2011 rejecting its refund claim, the VATO on 19th September 2013 again issued a notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Sections 32 of the DVAT Act. In the said notices, the VATO observed that the Assessee had filed revised returns claiming only 1/3rd of the ITC and remaining 2/3rd in the subsequent financial year. The revised return of the Assessee was, therefore, accepted to the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment order dated 19th September 2013 to the extent it accepts the revised returns, thereby accepting the refund claim of the Assessee. 15. In the above background, when the present writ petition was listed for hearing on 24th November 2014, the Court required Respondent No. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,97,35,047 being the difference between the refund in the sum of Rs. 6,66,05,308 (the ITC claimed by the Petitioner) and Rs. 1,68,60,261(the amount of tax and penalty computed in the impugned default assessment notice) for AY 2009-10. It was directed that on the deposit being made the amount will be placed in the fixed deposit which would be kept renewed. Pursuant to the above order, the Respondent had deposited a cheque in the sum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner acknowledges that the Assessee's objections against the order dated 19th September 2013 are indeed pending consideration before the OHA. 18. The undisputed fact is that during the pendency of the aforementioned objections, the VATO has again invoked the powers under Sections 32 of the DVAT Act and issued notices of default assessment on 18th November 2015 against the Assessee seeking to 'rectify' and in effect review the assessments for each of the months of AY 2009-10. The said default assessment notices are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions other than W.P. (C) 6510 of 2014. While Writ Petition (C) No. 12151 of 2015 challenges the notice of default assessment for the month of April 2009, the other elev....