The court ruled that the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under the DVAT Act precludes intervention via writ petitions, emphasizing adherence to judicial discipline and statute provisions.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th August, 2020 to the extent that the interest has been denied on the refund of the principal amount, namely, Rs.1,25,60,785/-. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to release the interest amounting to Rs.37,39,329 accrued as of 26th August, 2020 in accordance with Sect ion 42(1) of the DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX ACT , 2004 [for short `DVAT Act'].

3. Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is contrary to the principle of judicial discipline in particular in petitioner's own case Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. JV Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (2019) 67 GSTR 490 (Del), wherein this Court, with respect to the part of the refund for the same tax period i.e. fourth quarter of 2014-15, had held the interest to accrue with effect from 11th September, 2015. He points out that this order was not considered while passing the impugned order.

4. He states that insofar as the quantum of interest is concerned, the petitioner had filed DVAT-21 on 16th March, 2020 quantifying the entire amount of Rs.1,59,88,331/- which included interest of Rs.34,27,546/- on the request of the Special Commissioner. According to him, the petitioner was not required to file the DVAT-21 and it was merely filed because of system glitches as told to the petitioner by the Special Commissioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 39 (2) of the DVAT Act, the interest would accrue from the period specified in Section 38 (3)(a) of the DVAT Act, albeit the quantum of refund would depend upon the adjudication. Applying the same to the present case, he states that the objections were decided in petitioner's favour on 26th August, 2019 and consequently, the original revised return filed on 10th July, 2015 was confirmed and therefore, the interest would accrue from 11th September, 2015 i.e. when the two months time period for issuing refund expired. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in IJM Corporation Berhad & Ors. Vs CTT. (2018) 48 GSTR 102 (Del).

6. Per contra, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent states that the present writ petition is not maintainable as Petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 74 (1) of DVAT Act i.e. preferring an objection before the Objection Hearing Authority. He points out that in similar facts in ITD-ITD CEM JV vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes WP(C) 12018/2019, a coordinate bench of this Court had refused to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction.

7. He also states that the petitioner had been asked to file DVAT-21 in accordance with the procedure under Rule 34(4) of the DVAT Rules, 2005 and it was not due to any technical glitch as alleged by the petitioner.

8. In rejoinder, Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that it will be a travesty of justice, if the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is relegated to the appellate remedy. He contends that there will be a bar on appeal/objection against the impugned order as the same has been passed `giving effect to' the order of this Court. In support of his contention, he relies upon Section 79 (1)(j) of the DVAT Act which reads as under:-

"79. Bar on appeal or objection against certain orders