Delhi High Court
Murlidhar Vijay Kumar vs Value Added Tax Officer,Ward No. ... on 7 April, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2358/2011
W.P.(C) 2358/2011
MURLIDHAR VIJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.L. Garg, Advocate.
versus
VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER,WARD NO. 85 AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. A.K. Babbar, Advocate for R-1
& 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 07.04.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The petitioner, Murlidhar Vijay Kumar has filed an appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax against the demand on account
of tax and penalty for the tax periods September 2005, April 2006, May
2006 and June 2006. The petitioner had filed applications for waiver of
pre-deposit and by the common order dated 11th September, 2009, the
petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as a condition precedent
for hearing the appeals on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application pointing out that they were entitled to refund of
Rs.22,58,343/- for different periods from the Revenue. It was pointed out
that the petitioner had furnished surety for Rs.50,00,000/- and bank
guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/- which have to be discharged, but the Revenue
has not discharged them. By the impugned order dated 28th February,
2011 the application has been dismissed.
2. Before us also similar submissions have been made. It is submitted
that on the one hand the petitioner has been compelled to make a pre-
deposit and at the same time the Revenue has not refunded the amounts
due from them. Learned counsel for the Revenue has controverted the said
statement and has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is
justified as the two periods i.e. the period for which the refund is claimed
and the period for which the tax and penalty have been raised and
challenged in appeal are different.
3. Out of Rs.35,22,931/-, which is subject matter of appeals, nearly
Rs.18,40,000/- is claimed as due on account of penalty. We have further
noticed that vide order dated 2nd August, 2008, Additional Commissioner-
III, Department of Trade and Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had accepted
the objections raised by the petitioner for the period 1st April, 2005 to 31st
March, 2006 and had issued the following directions:-
"In view of the above, the objection filed by the
dealer u/s 32 is accepted and filed u/s 33 is partly
accepted, subject to the deposit of the above referred
demands by the objector, and verification of ISS
transactions and transporters address by the VATO
concerned with invoice, GRs, C Form ad payment
received by the objector. The VATO will verify from
the HPCL about the status of discount offered by
them to the objector."
4. The said directions have not been carried out till today as a result of
which refund due to the petitioner has not been quantified and paid.
Earlier also the petitioner was compelled to file writ petition
No.18111/2006 when the Sales Tax Department had raised various
demands but application for refund was not considered. C.M.
No.210/2007 filed in the said petition was disposed of vide order dated
20th April, 2007 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the
extent as stated with a direction to the parties to appear before the First
Appellate Authority on 21st May, 2007.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is directed that on the
petitioner depositing Rs.6,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks, Appeal
Nos.201-204/ATVAT/08-09 will be heard on merits. The respondent
No.1, the Value Added Tax Officer, Ward No.85 will examine and
comply with the directions issued by the Additional Commissioner-III in
the order dated 2nd April, 2008 within a period of seven weeks from
today. The petitioner will appear before the said officer along with copy
of this order on 18th April, 2011 at 2.30 pm., when a date for hearing will
be fixed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
April 07, 2011
NA
