Full Text
W.P.(C) 6018/2016
AMIDA PACKAGING PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vasdev Lalwani with Mr. Mohit Gautam and Mr. Rohit Gautam, Advocates
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate, Additional Standing Counsel, Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi
Through: •Mr. Vasdev Lalwani with Mr. Mohit
2016:DHC:8789-DB
AMIDA PACPCAGING PVT LTD Petitioner
Counsel.
AMIDA PACKAGING PVT LTD ., ..... Pet! tioner
Through: Mr. Va.sdev Lalwani with Mr. Mohit • / • ' ;
COMMISSIONER OF VAT & Al^. Respondents Counsel.
•' ••• W.P.(C) 6176/2016 '
AMIDA PACKAGING FVT.LTD .. Petitioner versus- '
COMVIISSIONER, OF VAT & Am. Respondents Counsel. _
-t . ^ W.P.(C) •6177/2016., W.P.(C) 6018/2016 iS conneciedmatters
AMIDA packaging PVTltd Petitioner
AMIDA PACK/iGING PVT LTD Petitioner
28.07.2016
ORDER
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6018-6019/2016, \\\l\(C) 6063/2016. W.P.tCI 6169/2016> W.P.(C) 6172/2016, W.PJO 6176-6178/2016, W.P.(C) 5940/2016 & W.P.(C) 5945/2016
2. Notice. Mr P. Roychaudhury, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf ofthe Respondents..3.These petitions pertain to the failure by the Respondent Department of Trade and Tfixes to grant refunds to the Petitioner, a registered dealer, under the Delhi Value AddedTax Act, 2004 ('DYAT Act') for the following periods: W.P.(C) 6018/2016,& connected matters Page[4] of[6] S.No. WP(C) No. Tax Period Refund claimed 1 6018/2016 1.1.2014-31.3.2014 Rs. 2,90,247/- 2 6019/2016 1.7.2013 -30.9.2013 Rs. 1,35,554/- 3 6063/2016 1.1.2015-31.3.2015 Rs. 1,57,548/- 4 6169/2016 1.1.2013 -31.3.2013 Rs. 2,82,860/- 5 6172/2016 1.4.2013-30.6.2013 Rs. 97,528/- 6 6176/2016 1.1.2009-31.3.2009 Rs. 6,03,332/- 7 6177/2016 1.1.2011 -31.3.2011 Rs. 3,05,390/- 8 6178/2016 1.7.2012-30.9.2012 Rs. 1,13,195/- 9 5940/2016 1.4.2014-30.6.2014 Rs. 1,35,709/- 10 5945/2016 1.7.2014 to 30.9.2014 Rs. 94,423/-
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the lapse of over two months since the filing of the quarterly returns, the refunds were not being made in tenus of Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of the DVAT Act. The Petitioner also points out that Circular No. 6 dated IS'*" June 2005 issued by the Commissioner, VAT requires refunds claims to be processed and refund orders issued in DVAT-22 within a period of 15 days from the date ofreceipt ofthe return unless it has been picked up for audit or where additional information sought has not been provided by the Assessee.
5. In these petitions, there is no valid explanation offered by the Respondent for the failure to grant to the Petitioner the reflmd claimed within the time stipulated under Section 38 ofthe DVAT Act. W,P.(C) 6018/2016 & connected matters Page 5 of[6]
6. Accordingly, the Court directs the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner, the refund due for each ofthe above periods together with interest thereon up to the date of payment, not later than three weeks from today.
7. If there is any failure on the part of the Respondent to comply with this direction, it will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. HAR, J JULY 28,2016 kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J W,P.(C) 6018/2016 & connected matters Page 6 of[6]