SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present writ petition assails the impugned order No.2039 dated 4th July, 2008 under Rule 29 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 whereby the Joint Commissioner (KCSU) has rejected the refund arising out of the assessment orders passed for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively.

2. At the outset, it must be pointed out that this is the third round of litigation between the Petitioner and the Revenue arising out of the

same issue.

3. The facts as are relevant for adjudication of the present writ petition are that:-

(a) The Petitioner is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale-purchase of electronic items. It has a chain of distributors and dealers through whom its goods are sold to ultimate customers. According to the Petitioner it has floated several schemes by virtue of which it offers trade discounts against the catalogue price and also cash discounts on immediate payments for the benefit of the distributors and dealers. Contracts in that behalf are entered to that effect at the time of appointment of distributors/dealers itself and the discounts are offered through credit notes issued to them. According to the Petitioner the credit notes include the tax amount.

(b) In respect of the assessment year 1997-98 the Assessing Officer under the Delhi Sales Tax Act (in short „DST Act?) framed an assessment on 29th September, 2000, whereby the claim of the Petitioner for trade discounts, said to have been given to its distributors and dealers, was disallowed.

(c) Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29th September, 2000, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the assessing authority for de novo adjudication vide its order dated 16th April, 2001.

(d) On 7th April, 2003 the Assessing Officer reconsidered the case of the Petitioner and for the assessment year 1997-98 he granted a refund of Rs.5,15,656/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had filed a complete set of credit notes showing credit of sales tax to the respective parties. One of the issues canvassed by the learned counsel appearing before the Assessing Officer was that the sales tax had already been returned by issuing credit notes and this was examined by the Deputy Commissioner who accepted the contention of the Petitioner. The Assessing Officer who examined the record and the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by the Petitioner allowed the claim made by the assessee. With regard to the assessment year 1998-99, the assessment of the Petitioner went through the same fate and on remand by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 8th December, 2003 accepting the claim of the Petitioner and granting a refund of Rs.3,68,601/-. In respect of the assessment year 1999-2000, since the earlier appellate order was already available, the Assessing Officer considered the matter on merit and by an order dated 28th December, 2001 granted a refund of Rs.86,73,349/- to the Petitioner.

(e) In the result, therefore, with regard to all the three assessment years, the claim of the Petitioner for allowing trade discounts in respect of the sales made to its distributors and dealers stood allowed by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed refund claims in respect of the three assessment years with the Assessing Officer under Section 30 of the DST Act. (f) Instead of granting the refund claim to the Petitioner in terms of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 14th June 2004 for reopening the assessment for all the three years. The Petitioner contested the notice, but in respect of 1999-2000, an order was passed on 16th July, 2004 denying to the Petitioner the benefit of trade discount and thereby denying the refund claim.

(g) The Petitioner feeling aggrieved filed two writ petitions in this Court being Writ P