The main legal point established is the mandatory nature of the time limits for refund processing under Section 38 of the DVAT Act, emphasizing the strict adherence to the provisions and rejecting justifications for delay.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. Nucleus Impex Pvt. Ltd (“NIPL”) is the Petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. 8104 & 8393/2015 and Nucleus Marketing & Communication (“NMC”) in W.P.(C) 7511/2015. They are dealers duly registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (“DVAT Act”) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST”).

2. The essential grievance of the Petitioners is against the failure by the Respondent, Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax (“DVAT”) to grant refund together with interest due to the Petitioners in accordance with Section 38 of the DVAT Act. In the case of NMC the refund together with interest was due for the months of November 2012 for the year 2012-13 and in the case of NIPL it was due for the 3rd and 4th quarter for 2012-13 as well as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2013-14.

3. The case of the Petitioners is that they have been filing returns as and when due under the DVAT Act. For the month of November 2012, the return was filed on 27th December 2012 claiming refund of Rs. 20,46,725. It is submitted that in respect of the said claim, the due date for issuance of refund in terms of Section 38 of the DVAT is 27th February 2013. As regards the quarterly returns for the 3rd and 4th quarter relating to 2012-13, returns were filed on 31st October 2013 (revised) and 26th April 2013 (original) respectively. The respective due dates for issuance of the refund as claimed in these returns were 31st December 2013 and 26th June 2013 respectively.

4. As regards the returns for 2013-14 the revised returns for the 1st and 2nd quarter were filed on 16th July 2014 claiming refund and for the 3rd and 4th quarter on 28th March 2015 (all revised returns) claiming refund. While the due date for issuance of refund for the 1st and 2nd quarter for 2013-14 was 16th September 2014, the refund for 3rd and 4th quarter for 2013-14 was due on 28th May 2015.

5. It is submitted that during the period in question, the dealers had less output tax payable and more input tax credit (“ITC”) and such refund was due as indicated in the return. Further, a reference is made to Circular No. 6 issued by the Commissioner, VAT on 15th June 2015 in terms of which the Petitioners have the right to receive the refund within 15 days from the date of filing of the return where the return is not picked up for audit. It is stated that the said Circular issued under Section 67 (2) of the DVAT Act is binding on the VATO and yet no refund has been made till date. It is asserted that neither was the refund issued to the Petitioner within 15 days nor was the case picked up for audit nor any security under Section 38 (5) of the DVAT Act demanded. No notice was issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act within 10 days from the date of filing return.

6. The main plank of the submission of Mr. A.K. Babbar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is based on the decision of this Court in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del) which was subsequently followed by this Court in Dish TV India Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2016) 92 VST 83 (Del)

7. Pursuant to the notices issued in these petitions, counter-affidavits have been filed in W.P.(C) Nos. 8104 and 8393/2015 by the Respondent. In the first place, it is urged that an alternative remedy is available to the Petitioners under the DVAT Act since any return filed by the dealer is deemed to be a notice of assessment under Section 31 (1) (b) of the DVAT Act and if the Commissioner had failed to issue any assessment or order to that effect then the person aggrieved by such failure can file an objection before the Objection Hearing Authority (“OHA”) under Section 74 (2) of the DVAT Act. If the dealer is still aggrieved by the decision of the OHA, an appeal can be preferred before the Appellate Tribunal (AT) under Section 76 (1) of the DVAT Act.

8. As regards the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, the Court finds that the matter pertains to the delay in proce