JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying for the direction to be issued to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.59,56,772/-, which the petitioner claims is due for the fourth quarter of the year 2013-14. The petitioner further claims that he is entitled to interest on the said amount which has been outstanding since several years.

2. The petitioner had filed a return claiming a refund of the sum of Rs.59,59,499/- for the fourth quarter of the year 2013-14 on 09.05.2014. Thereafter, it filed a revised return on 15.01.2015 reducing its claim of refund to Rs.59,56,772/-. The petitioner's return was not processed immediately.

3. However, on 19.10.2015, the concerned Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) issued a notice under Section 59(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act).

4. Thereafter, default assessment was framed on 31.03.2018 and a demand for the fourth quarter of the year 2013-14 was framed raising a demand of Rs.34,582/-. A notice was issued for the aforesaid amount.

5. The petitioner claims that the liability for the said amount was assessed on account of some difference in the output tax liability and the input tax credit.

6. The petitioner claims that it continued to pursue the concerned authority for seeking the refund, which according to the petitioner, was due within a period of two months from filing of the return/revised return.

7. The petitioner also contends that even if the additional liability of Rs.34,582/- is accepted, the petitioner's claim for refund would at best be reduced by the aforesaid amount. And, there is no possible reason for the respondent to have withheld the said amount.

8. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner had filed the present petition.

9. The present petition was listed on 15.11.2022 and this Court had expressed a prima facie view that the petitioner would be entitled for a refund along with interest for at least previous three years.

10. There is no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the excess tax paid. The respondent has since refunded the excess tax and also paid interest for the period of three years. In the circumstances the only question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period prior to the said three years.

11. Concededly, the return filed by the assessee is required to be considered as an application for refund and the respondent is required to process the same.

12. The said issue was considered by a coordinate bench of this Court in IJM Corporation Berhad v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11864. This Court had held that in terms of Section 42 of the DVAT Act, interest would be payable if the refund is not paid within a period of two months of filing of the return. Paragraph 16 and 17 of the said judgment are relevant and read as under:

"16. Section 42 relates to interest and sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that an assessee who is entitled to refund shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the refund, simple interest at the annual rate notified by the government from time to time computed on a daily basis. It fixes the time from which the interest is payable i.e. the date on which refund was due to be paid to the assessee; or the date when the overpaid amount was paid by that person, whichever was later. Interest is payable up to the date on which the refund is given. Subsection (1), therefore, fixes the starting point and the end point. With reference to the starting point, the date on which the refund was due to be paid to the assessee or the date when the overpaid amount was paid by the assessee, whichever is later is applicable. There is also stipulation in the first proviso with regard to adjustment, deduction etc. with which we are not concerned in the present case. The second proviso stipulates that if the amount of such refund is enhanced or reduced, as the case may be, t