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, original purchase bills and other expense bills in compliance with the directions issued by the OHA. The petitioner claimed that it was entitled to exemption in respect of certain charges towards labour expenses etc. The Tribunal was of the view that the OHA ought to have considered the said documents but the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the OHA did not reflect that any of the said documents were considered. Accordingly, by an order dated 17.09.2021, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the OHA and remanded the matter to be considered afresh. The operative part of the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Tribunal reads as under:

"10. As a result, while disposing of both these appeals, and setting aside the impugned order dated 22/12/2020 passed by learned OHA, the matter is remanded to the learned OHA for decision afresh, after taking into consideration the relevant material, out of the documents which were produced before learned OHA vide letter dated 7/10/2020, while keeping in view provisions of section 5(2) of the Act, and 3(1) of DVAT Rules, 2005, and after affording to the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

5. Concededly, the OHA has not passed any order pursuant to the remand by the Tribunal.

6. The petitioner claims that it is now entitled to refund on the ground that the time for the OHA to pass an order has elapsed and therefore, its return claiming a refund of Rs.14,12,185/- stands. The petitioner also claims that it is entitled to refund along with interest under Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act. According to the petitioner, it is not required to file any separate application for claiming refund. In view of the decision of this Court in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax & Anr., (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del), the VAT Authority is required to process the refund of VAT within the prescribed period.

7. Mr. Gautam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, also relied on the provisions of Section 74 of the DVAT Act and submitted that since the OHA did not pass any order after the matter was remanded by the Tribunal, it is deemed that the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of the default assessments are allowed.

8. He also referred to the decision of this Court in Shaila Enterprises v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax, (2016) 94 VST 367 and on the strength of the said decision, contended that the OHA was required to pass an order within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 34(2) of the DVAT Act.

9. Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, countered the said submissions. He contended that no notice has been issued by the petitioner under Section 74(8) of the DVAT Act, requiring the OHA to render its decision within a period of fifteen d