IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, PRATEEK JALAN, JJ.
Rockwell Industries - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 393 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2019
DVAT Act - Default Assessment Orders - Section 38(3)(ii) - Section 34 - Section 58 - Section 59 - Section 25 - Section 27 - Section 32 - Section 33 - Section 42
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in trading of shoe accessories, filed a return claiming a refund under the DVAT Act. Default assessment orders were passed resulting in a demand. The petitioner contended that the assessment did not reveal any mismatch or concealment of particulars justifying the extended period for assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the default assessment orders were made to defeat the refund claim and could not be sustained. The court set aside the default assessment orders and directed the authorities to disburse the claimed amount along with interest.
Issues: Default assessment orders, mismatch in dealer accounts, withholding of refunds, statutory powers abuse
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the default assessment orders were unjustified and set them aside based on precedents emphasizing timely refund and limitations on re-opening assessments. The court also found that the orders were made to defeat the refund claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the default assessment orders, and directed the authorities to disburse the claimed amount with interest within four weeks.
Prateek Jalan, J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to default assessment orders dated 14.11.2018 and consequent refund adjustment order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the authorities under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, ("hereinafter referred to as the DVAT Act").
2. The petitioner is engaged in trading of shoe accessories and is registered under the DVAT Act. In accordance with the provisions of the statute, the petitioner pays tax on purchases made within the state ("input tax") which is adjusted against the tax payable on sales ("output tax"). The petitioner claims refunds on account of the fact that its output tax liability is less than the input tax paid. To the extent that the petitioner's sales are inter-state sales, it is entitled to a concessional rate of tax of 2% against C forms.
3. For the quarter 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2014, the petitioner filed a return claiming a refund of Rs.17,59,874/-. The failure of the respondents to issue the refund led to the filing of W.P(C) 8762/2018 before this Court. However, after notice was issued in that petition on 21.08.2018, default assessment orders dated 14.11.2018 were passed in respect of five quarters, resulting in a demand of Rs.17,66,883/-. These pertain to the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2012-13 and all the quarters of F.Y. 2013-14.
4. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the refund was required to be made within a period of two months from the date of filing of the returns under Section 38(3)(ii) of the DVAT Act. He submitted that the assessment in the present case (for F.Y. 2013-14) had already been made on 12.01.2017 and statutory forms had also been filed. The default assessment orders, according to him, do not reveal any mismatch between the selling dealer and the petitioner, or any finding that the petitioner has concealed material particulars which could justify the invocation of the extended period under Section 34 of the DVAT Act.
5. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi, submits that the default assessment orders dated 14.11.2018 are based upon a mismatch in the account of dealers from whom the petitioner had made purchases. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that this justifies the suo motu review of the assessment order in the present case.
6. Section 38 of the DVAT Act provides as follows:
"38 Refunds
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the rules, the Commissioner shall refund to a person the amount of tax, penalty and interest, if any, paid by such person in excess of the amount due from him.
(2) Before making any refund, the Commissioner shall first apply such excess towards the recovery of any other amount due under this Act, or under the CST Act, 1956 (74 of 1956).
(3) Subject to 1 [sub-section (4) and sub-section (5)] of this section, any amount remaining after the application referred to in sub-section (2) of this section shall be at the election of the dealer, either -
[(a) refunded to the person, -
(i) within one month after the date on which the return was furnished or claim for the refund was made, if the tax period for the person claiming refund is one month;
(ii) within two months after the date on which the return was furnished or claim for the refund was made, if the tax period for the person claiming refund is a quarter; or]
(b) carried forward to the next tax period as a tax credit in that period.
(4) Where the Commissioner has issued a notice to the person under section 58 of this Act advising him that an audit, investigation or inquiry into his business affairs will be undertaken 1 [or sought additional information under section 59 of this Act,] the amount shall be carried forward to the next tax period as a tax credit in that period.
(5) The Commissioner may, as a condition of the payment of a refund, demand security from the person pursuant to the powers conferred in section 25 of this Act 2 [within fifteen days from the date on which the return was furnis
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.