2017 (5) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....('DVAT Act'). 3. The Petitioner's refund applications pertaining to the tax period of November and December, 2012 and January and March, 2013 have been pending with the Respondents. Although Section 38 of the DVAT Act obliges the DVAT Department to process the claims within one month, since this a monthly return, nothing was done on the refund claim. This is contrary to the decisions of this Court in Swarn Darshan Impex P. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax & Anr. (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del) and Prime Papers & Packers v. Commissioner of VAT & Ors. (2016) 94 VST 347 (Del). 4. In those decisions, the Court has also emphasised that the Value Added Tax Officer ('VATO') should not view pendency of the refund application as an opportunity to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n in clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Act are fulfilled. Further circular no.6 of 2014-15 dated 04/08/2014 of Special Commissioner (Policy) has also directed to verify the ITC before allowing the refund. In the instant case, ITC is not verified of Rs. 8,39,723/- is disallowed as per section 9(2)(g) of DVAT Act. The dealer is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 8,39,723/- and furnish details of such payment in Form DVAT-27A along with proof of payment to the undersigned on or before 30-05-2017 for the following tax period(s)- Tax Period Turnover reported by the dealer Turnover assessed Tax reported/paid (1) (2) (3) (4) Nov-2012 84,40,438 0 0   Tax assessed Additional d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartment decided to examine the return filed more than four years earlier. While, technically, it could be argued that these default assessment orders were passed within time they were in fact issued on the last date of expiry of limitation. The Court cannot be blind to what the orders really purport to do. They are intended to frustrate the issuance of refund orders for the periods in question which are long overdue. 10. The Court is constrained to observe that there has been a persistent attempt by the DVAT Department to somehow ensure that the refund claims are defeated by creating fresh demands which are then adjusted against the refund amount. This is a pattern that the Court has been observing in several petitions listed before it....