PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, P. B. VARALE
Commissioner of Trade and Taxes – Appellant
Versus
FEMC Pratibha Joint Venture – Respondent
1. The issue for consideration before us is whether the timeline for refund under Section 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 20041 [Hereinafter ‘the Act’] must be mandatorily followed while recovering dues under the Act by adjusting them against the refund amount.
2. The brief facts relevant for our purpose are as follows. The respondent is a joint venture engaged in the execution of works contracts for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and makes purchases for this purpose. It claimed refund of excess tax credit amounting to Rs. 17,10,15,285/- for the 4th quarter of 2015-16 through revised return filed on 31.03.2017 and Rs. 5,44,39,148/- for the 1st quarter of 2017-18 through return filed on 29.03.2019, along with applicable interest under Section 42 of the Act. The appellant did not pay the refund even until 2022, pursuant to which the respondent sent a letter dated 09.11.2022 for the consideration of their refund. The Value Added Tax Officer passed an adjustment order dated 18.11.2022 to adjust the respondent’s claims for refund against dues under default notices dated 30.03.2020, 23.03.2021, 30.03.2021, and 26.03.2022. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Delh
Flipkart India Private Limited vs. Value Added Tax Officer, Ward-300
Nucleus Marketing and Communication vs. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax
Rockwell Industries vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Commissioner of Trade and Taxes vs. Corsan Corviam Construction S.A. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. JV
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.