Selling dealers are not liable for verification beyond confirming the purchasing dealer's registration and authenticity of supplied C Forms as upheld in the Supreme Court ruling on inter-State trade.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, impugning the assessment orders dated 29.08.2020 (hereafter `impugned assessment orders') passed by the learned Assistant Value Added Tax Officer (hereafter `the AVATO') of the Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT Delhi under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter `DVAT Act') for the fourth quarter of the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018, as being violative of Article 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Factual Context

2. M/s Mangalam Traders is the proprietorship concerns of Mr. Raj Kumar (hereafter `the petitioner'). He is engaged in the business of inter-State trading of cosmetics, toiletries, disinfectant, deodorants, drugs, medicines, fruit jams, insect repellents, mosquito coils, ready mix food items and washing soaps under the name and style of Mangalam Traders. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the DVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter `the CST Act') vide TIN No. 07207142661.

3. The petitioner states that he filed quarterly returns for the fourth quarter of the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 01.06.2017 and 29.07.2017, respectively, inter alia claiming concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sales on the strength of C Form. The petitioner reported inter-State sales of Rs.5,29,68,790/- and Rs.2,39,20,824/- for the aforesaid two quarters and claimed a refund of Rs.53,93,100 and Rs. 24,47,850, respectively, against C forms.

4. The petitioner's claim for refund was not processed and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court [being C.W.P. 9574 of 2017 and C.W.P. 9576 of 2017], inter alia, praying that directions be issued for refund of the amount claimed for the fourth quarter of the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018. These petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 30.10.2017, which reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Petitioner has to file `C' forms in physical form with the Authorities and thereafter the claim for refund can be processed by the Authorities.

It will be open to the petitioner to file the physical `C' forms with the Authorities within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent authority will thereafter process the refund claim of the petitioner within the statutory period. In case there is a delay in the process of refund claim of the petitioner beyond the statutory period, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application in these writ petitions and ask for revival

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."

5. The petitioner furnished the physical forms, and the respondents passed a refund order dated 11.12.2017 for the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018, wherein the refund amount of Rs.20,86,966 was allowed after adjusting Rs.3,60,884/- against the claim of refund of Rs.24,47,850.

6. The petitioner claims that although the said refund order has been passed but the same has not been credited in his account. Insofar as the refund of Rs.53,93,100/- for the fourth quarter of the assessment year 2016-17 is concerned, the respondent's claim for refund was not processed.

7. The Value Added Tax Officer (hereafter `the VATO') issued a notice of default assessment dated 11.04.2018 for the period in question (fourth quarter of t