Punj Lloyd Ltd vs The Commissioner Value Added Tax on 12 July, 2018

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. The petitioner (hereafter “the company”) is aggrieved by the failure of
the respondent (hereafter called “DVAT”) to process and refund excess
amounts payable to it for two periods and has approached this court.

2. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business ofworks contracts
transactions and is registered as a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax
Act (hereafter “the Act”). The company filed periodical returns (hereafter
“the returns”) for all tax periods of the assessment year 2011-2012 including
return filed for the period March 2012 (hereafter “the period”) enclosing tax

WP(C) 10620/2016 Page 1 of 11
deduction at source (hereafter “TDS”) certificates in original. As of March
2012, the company had an excess amount credit of ` 4,60,41,149 it was
entitled to. The company contends that this excess amount was inadvertently
reflected as carry forward to the next tax period in the return instead of
mentioning it in the column pertaining to refund for the subsequent period,
which is clear from the fact that no benefit was reflected in the return for the
next period. As the petitioner’s representations were to no avail, it
approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 5244/2016, seeking a direction
to the DVAT to refund amounts due to it, given the position in law as to its
entitlements under Section 38 and 42 of the Act and having regard to the
fact that the respondents could no longer process the return and assess the
amounts, in view of the limitation under Section 34.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*