Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Jutla & Co. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Vat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,12,185/- along with interest in terms of Section 42 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter `the DVAT Act'). The petitioner had filed its Value Added Tax (VAT) return for the quarter 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017, on 28.09.2017. According to the petitioner, in terms of the said return, refund of Rs.14,12,185/- of VAT was due for the said period.
2. The Assessing Officer (hereafter `the AO') did not accept the said returns and framed a default assessment of VAT for the year 2014- 15 and 2016-17 by assessment orders, both dated 18.06.2018.
3. The petitioner filed its objections before the Objection Hearing Authority (hereafter `the OHA'). However, the same were dismissed by an order dated 22.12.2020. The petitioner appealed the said order dated 22.12.2020 before the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `the Tribunal').
4. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had, during the course of proceedings before the OHA, submitted various documents including copies of ledger accounts, original cash vouchers, origi
The main legal point established is that the refund under the DVAT Act should be processed within the stipulated period, and interest is payable from the date the refund was due to be paid.
State authorities are mandatorily required to pay interest on delayed tax refunds at the prescribed rate once the statutory limit for processing passes. Procedural failures in notification or record-....
Adherence to time limits for processing refunds and conditions for withholding refunds under Section 38 of the DVAT Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to interest on a refunded amount accrues to the assessee on the date specified in Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of the Delhi Value Added Tax ....
The court emphasized that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are required to stand or fall on their own and subsequent explanations by way of affidavit(s) cannot be permitt....
It is evident that when an order of assessment, re-assessment, rectification or revision of an assessment is made following an order of any Court, the same is required to be made within three years f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
