Disposed

Ases Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a refund of VAT amount and interest. Respondents' counsel admitted the delay was due to an error and assured processing within two weeks. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to process the refund and grant admissible interest within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.8,35,184/- and interest directed to be processed within two weeks.

Ases Security Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr. — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 04.01.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 101/2024 & CM. APPLS. 437/2024

¶5

ASES SECURITY PVT LTD ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES & ANR....Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mr. Ramanand Roy, Mr. Mayank Kouts and Mr. Shiva Narang, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶10

CORAM:-

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶12

JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.8,35,184/- allegedly due to the petitioner alongwith interest thereon.

¶14

Petitioner filed a return for the fourth quarter of 2012-13 on 26.04.2013 and claimed a refund of Rs.8,35,184/- under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act.

¶15

An assessment order was passed by the Value Added Tax Officer creating a demand of Rs.2,86,784/- and therefrom an

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2024 14:32:01

¶18

W.P.(C) 101/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶19

adjustment was made. Petitioner objected to the said assessment order, leading to an order being passed by Objection Hearing Authority. The order passed by the Objection Hearing Authority was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 06.10.2021. Thereafter, petitioner tried to file Form DVAT-21, however, on account of a technical error, the same was not accepted. As per the petitioner, the refund for the tax period already paid has already been filed by the respondents and no demand appears in the portal, however, refund has not yet been processed for the said quarter.

¶20

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents, who submits that on account of an error, the same could not be processed and assures that the refund shall be processed within a period of two weeks from today. The statement is taken on record.

¶21

In view of the above, petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to process the refund within a period of two weeks. Respondents shall also grant to the petitioner admissible interest in accordance with law.

¶22

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶23

JANUARY 04, 2024/NA

¶24

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2024 14:32:01

¶27

W.P.(C) 101/2024 Page 2 of 2

Ases Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ases Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Shashi Gupta and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Chopra Vs BSNL & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Sym Company Vs Pr. Commissioner, Customs (Import) and Ors.

Arun Garg Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 35 1 Delhi

Abc Rj Land 01 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Vivek Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Om Narayan Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Sym Company Vs Pr. Commissioner, Customs (Import) and Ors.

Sight Sound Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Ors.

Micro Weld Engineerings Vs the Principal Additional Director General & Anr.

Tanryberdi Muhammetberdiyev Vs the Commissioner of Customs Delhi Zone