Mangalam Traders Vs Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax Department of Trade And Taxes And Anr (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that petitioner is duly entitled for interest under section 42(1) of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (the DVAT Act) since refund withheld unjustifiably.
Facts- Petitioner is a registered dealer under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner filed quarterly returns for the 4th quarter of the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the 1st quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 01.06.2017 and 29.07.2017 respectively, therein claiming concessional rate of interest in respect of interstate sales on the basis of C Form. Petitioner reported interstate 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 the ‘C’ Forms. Since the claim for refund was not processed, petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court.
Conclusion- The DVAT Act, 2004 provides strict guidelines for the grant of refund which are mandatory and not discretionary.
Requirement to file DVAT-21 was considered by this Court in Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. Value Added Tax Officer, W.P.(C) 6430/2022. This Court had held that once a claim for refund stands embodied in the return itself, there is no obligation upon the assessee to file Form DVAT-21.
