2017 (5) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Mr. Vijender Singh, Advocates O R D E R 1. Issue notice. Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner's refund application has been pending with the Respondents/ Delhi Value Added Tax Department since 20th January, 2015. The refund amount is Rs. 18,21,440/-. After sitting on the application for over two years, on 11th April, 2017, the Value Adde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essments normally be levied as duty for a period far beyond what is permissible under Section 38 of the DVAT Act. Illustratively, a reference may be made to the decisions in M/s. Swarn Darshan Impex v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del) and M/s Prime Papers & Packers v. Commissioner of VAT (2016) 94 VST 347 (Del). Despite Circular No. 6/2005 dated 15th June 2005 and the Instruct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iding an explanation. In any event it ought not to have been resorted to at a stage when the refund was long overdue. The entire exercise is fraught with illegality and is an abuse of the process of the law by the VATO. The Court, accordingly, sets aside the default assessment order dated 11th April, 2017. 5. There being no other compliance pointed out by the VATO, there can be no justification f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner VAT, including Circular No. 6 of 2005 and recently the Order dated 21st July 2016, the problem of delayed refunds persists. The frequent transfers of VATOs and the lack of any orientation and training as regards their statutory responsibilities cannot constitute a valid justification for delaying the refunds due to the dealers. The Court would urge the Commissioner VAT to review the issue o....