PUNJ LLOYD LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX

JUDGEMENT

(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 deduction at source (hereafter "TDS") certificates in original. As of March 2012, the company had an excess amount credit of Rs 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.

(3.) This court disposed of the writ petition, on 30 May, 2016, directing as follows: