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

....espondents Through: Mr. Avtar Singh & 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund, the DVAT Department cannot re-open assessments 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r and without affording an opportunity of providing 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments of this Court and circulars issued by the Commissioner 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....