This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Delhi HC condemns VAT dept for deliberate delay in issue of VAT refund
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Asian Polymers Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr (Delhi High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Delhi High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
It is plain to the Court that it is only when the Assessee came forward with the present petition complaining of the failure by the DVAT Department to process its refund claim in terms of Section 38 of the DVAT Act, that the DVAT Department decided to examine the return filed more than four years earlier. While, technically, it could be argued that these default assessment orders were passed within time they were in fact issued on the last date of expiry of limitation. The Court cannot be blind to what the orders really purport to do. They are intended to frustrate the issuanc...
To ADD
One is instantly provoked to recall the Del. HC judgment in Bansal’s case, adverse to the Revenue (see previous Posts/comment). There has been no further report on the outcome or new development; also on the refund status of service tax collected in that and those other cases, by virtue of the HC holding against the constitutional validity of such levy and collection.Any feedback ?
OFFHAND
This is a strikingly detestable instance, recurring almost as a matter of routine, of delay, more so of a deliberate delay, in grant of excess tax paid; that has rather become a part of the procedure, but unwritten law.
To one’s understanding, even under the GST code, the prescribed refund procedure is not hassle- free but is most likely to prove quite cumbersome. The correctness of the claim for refund is required to be certified; after satisfying the conditions laid down. The primary objective of such conditions, intended to work as checks and balances, is to guard against ‘unjust enrichment’ by taxpayer.
However, on the flip side, the point for focus is this: Do not any delay, if deliberately indulged in by the tax authority, virtually result in an unjust enrichment of the government, so to say? If so, should not the refund procedure be much more simplified, in order to ensure settlement of refund strictly within the time limit; and any delay, deliberate or otherwise, should automatically entitle tax payer to compensatory interest?
For an intimate insight into the refund mechanism, complex to the core, as embodied in the GST Code, among other material, recommend to look up the article lately published in the ICAI Journal, 2017 May Issue (pgs. 1563 -1567)