IKEA TRADING (INDIA) Vs. VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's grievance before this Court is that a sum of Rs.2,55,11,598/ - has to be paid to it by the respondents (hereafter referred to as "the VAT Department).

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner, a registered dealer, was, at the relevant time, exporting home furnishing products, including carpets, durries, fabrics, plastic articles, lamps, soft toys etc. The petitioner had, during the course of VAT proceedings filed objections to the Assessing Officer's (AO's) determinations. These objections were not decided in eight months' time as required by the relevant statutory provision. Therefore, the petitioner, basing upon the previous order of the VAT Tribunal in Behl Construction successfully argued that if the objections are not decided by the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) within eight months they are deemed to have been allowed. The Tribunal accepted that argument and directed refund of amounts claimed. The VAT Department's appeal to this Court was rejected on the ground that it was preferred after the period of limitation and that there was no provision in the Delhi VAT Act, enabling the Court to condone the delay.

(3.) THE VAT Department points out that the VAT Tribunal's ruling in Behl Construction was overturned by this Court in its appeal where it was held that the provision requiring decision within eight months is not mandatory but only directory. Learned counsel also submitted that as far as the appeal was concerned, a retrospective amendment has been made enabling this Court to condone the delay. These aspects were not being disputed by the petitioner.