Disposed

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Oct 2019W.P.(C)/10713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation for refund of tax amount with interest. The matter was remanded to authorities to be decided within eight weeks applying unjust enrichment principles.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat the writ petition as a representation for refund of amount with interest to be decided within eight weeks.

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 9^th October, 2019

¶4

- W.P.(C) 10713/2019

¶5

M/S TRUSINE ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Madan, Mr. S.K. Khurana & Mr. Shyam Jain, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR.

¶8

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC (GNCTD) with Ms.Hafsa Khan, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶12

C.M.No.44313/2019 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C). 10713/2019

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the refund amount of Rs.54,51,993/- is to be paid by the respondents with interest @6% under Section 42 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. It is further submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid refund amount is for the Second, Third and Fourth quarters of the assessment year

¶17

W.P.(C) 10713/2019 Page 1 of 2

¶18

2016-2017.

¶19

Counsel for the respondents submitted that notices have already been issued by the respondents under Section 59(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 to the petitioner herein which have not been replied by this petitioner so far.

¶20

Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct respondents No.1 and 2 to treat this writ petition as representation for refund of amount along with interest as claimed by the petitioner. The same shall be decided in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the present case including principles of unjust enrichment as propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. reported in 1997 89 ELT 247 (SC) and on the basis of evidences available on record within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order on record.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶24

OCTOBER 09, 2019 ns

¶25

W.P.(C) 10713/2019 Page 2 of 2

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Trusine Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Unity Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Vasu Dev Monga Vs Registrar General Delhi High Court

Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gail (India) Limited and Anr.

Anu Kumari and Ors. Vs Registrar General Delhi High Court

Suresh Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Praveen Kumar and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ex. Inspector Lala Ram (Executive) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Prasad Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Jitender Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

M/S Unity Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Prag Chawla Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vidhanshi Kamalia & Anr. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Pentapati Pulla Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Meghna Bali Vs Principal Iimt and Anr.