2019 (8) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 16,05,666/- for the first quarter of 2017-18. 3. The Petitioner is registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ('DVAT Act') and is engaged in the trading of electronic appliances, wires, etc. The Petitioner has been making local purchases of electronic appliances and then selling them to registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act') after charging tax of 2% as applicable under Section 8 (1) of the CST Act. 4. It is explained in the petition that for the first quarter of 2017-18, the original return was first filed on 9th August, 2017 for refund of Rs. 15,86,413/-. Later, the return was revised on 26th August, 2017, marginally increasing the refund amount to Rs. 16,05,666/-. 5. On 4th October, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 26.09.2018, the refunds were in fact processed; however, those orders were erroneous, and that the Revenue proposes, after issuing notice, to proceed with review/rectification. List on 18th March, 2019." 9. Today, Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned counsel for the Respondent, produced before the Court a copy of an order passed by the VATO, Ward-41 on 15th March, 2019 whereby the assessment was purported to be made for the same period i.e. for first quarter of 2017-18, this time creating a demand of Rs. 10,42,774/-. 10. Mr. Farasat for the Respondent submitted that although the order dated 12th December, 2018 recorded that the Respondent sought to review/rectify the refund orders, what was sought to be conveyed by the Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regards creating a demand at the stage when refund is overdue is well settled in a large number of decisions of this Court. In Swarn Darshan Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner VAT (supra), it was observed as under: "16. In any event, even if we assume that the said notice was issued by the respondents and that it had been received by the petitioner, it would not change the position in law. Sub-section (4) of Section 38 has to be read with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 38. By virtue of the latter provision, the refund had to be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of the return furnished by him. No such notice under Section 59 requiting additional information had been issued during that period. Conseque....