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.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs.54,58,897/-, along with interest with effect from 01.06.2015. The said sum of Rs.54,58,897/- as claimed by the petitioner, relates to the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2013-14 and was included in the petitioner's claim for refund of Rs.2,64,77,458/-, in its revised return of Value Added Tax for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2013-14, furnished on 31.03.2015. The petitioner claims that in terms of Section 42 of the Delhi Value added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter `the DVAT Act'), it is entitled to interest on the said amount of Rs.54,58,897/- with effect from 01.06.2015, that is, two months after filing the revised return.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

2. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of development of the infrastructural sector and was awarded civil construction works for various projects in Delhi, namely, Mangolpuri DMSW Project, Narela Power Project, DSIIDC Residential Flats Project, Bawana Power Projects, and Najafgarh Drain Project, to name a few.

3. For the purposes of complying with his obligations under the DVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter `the CST Act'), the petitioner applied for and was registered with the Department of Trade and Taxes, Delhi (hereafter `the Department') on 05.03.2007. The petitioner was assigned TIN 07510324123.

4. On 27.05.2014, the petitioner filed its return under the requisite form (Form DVAT 56) for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2013-14 claiming a refund of Rs.2,59,88,302/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revised return in Form DVAT 56 on 31.03.2015, enhancing its claim of refund to Rs.2,64,77,458/-. The petitioner claims that on the date of filing of its return, there were no amounts due for any period either under the DVAT Act or the CST Act.

5. On 07.06.2014, and 15.05.2014 notices (in all twenty-four in number) for default assessments of tax and interest were issued under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act, for various tax periods falling during the Financial Year 2012-13. On 15.06.2015, notices for default assessments were framed for tax periods falling within the Financial Year 2013-14 by the Department. These default assessments were made alleging mismatch in the Input Tax Credit (ITC), due to mismatch between purchases made by the petitioner and sales shown by the registered selling dealer. The Department raised a demand of additional tax amounting to Rs.54,58,897/- on account of the aforesaid count. In addition, the Department also imposed a penalty of Rs.32,600/- on the petitioner.

6. The petitioner claims that on 10.10.2015, the petitioner filed its objections in respect of the default assessments for the tax periods falling within the Financial Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, under Section 74 of the DVAT Act before the Objection Hearing Authority (hereafter `the OHA'). The petitioner claims that it simultaneously also pursued the Department for release of the refund as claimed by it in its revised return in, respect of the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2013-14. There is a controversy as to whether the petitioner had filed the objections, on 10.10.2015 as claimed, or later. Although, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the objections were filed later; it is conceded that there is no material to substantiate the said contention. Mr Satyakam, learned counsel who appeared for the Revenue, states that the relevant records are not traceable and it is not possible to ascertain the date on which the objections were filed. He also clarified that the date of filing of the objections (30.09.2019) as reflected in the tabular statement set out in paragraph no. 5 of the Revenues application (CM No. 7916/2023) is not the date of filing of the objections but the date of communications issued. We therefore, accept that the Petitioner had