W.P.(C)/10436/2024 of ITD-ITD CEM JV Vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

%

23.09.2026

1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved of orders dated 13.05.2022 and 08.03.2024.

2. The grievance raised is that the interest is not calculated in terms of Section 42 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short ‘the DVAT Act’).

3. The brief facts are that as per the return filed by the petitioner for the first quarter of assessment year 2016-17, there was a refund of Rs.26,06,59,353/- due. The claim for refund was made on the basis of Section 38(3) of the DVAT Act which provides that the refund is to be processed within 60 days in the absence of any notice issued within that period. Default notices under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act were issued on 24.04.2018 and 03.02.2021. The proceedings culminated in the default assessment dated 31.03.2021 wherein the demand was Nil.

4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2023 and the operative part is reproduced below:- “21. We accordingly allow the instant writ petitions and quash the Hearing Notice dated 24 May 2022. The Refund Order of 29 April 2022 shall for reasons aforenoted stand set aside to the extent that it adjusts an amount of Rs.13,60,14,547/-. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential reliefs.

22. The respondents shall consequently compute the amounts which would become refundable to the petitioner in light of our observations appearing hereinabove and affect disbursement accordingly. The aforesaid refunds shall be disbursed along with interest in terms of Section 42 of the Act.

23. The writ petitions along with pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.”

5. The SLP filed by the respondent impugning the decision of this court dated 26.09.2023 was dismissed on 09.02.2024. A refund of Rs.12,46,44,806/- was issued on 29.04.2022 and credited on 25.05.2022. Interest of Rs.69,66,449/- was granted vide order dated 13.05.2022. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, interest of Rs.2,27,82,768/- was granted vide order dated 08.03.2024 and the balance refund of Rs.13,60,10,964/- was released on 15.03.2024.

6. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 74 of the DVAT Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner and the appeal is to be heard by the Commissioner.

8. From a reading of Section 74 of the DVAT Act, it is evident that the appeal lies to the Commissioner.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy under Section 74 of the DVAT Act against the impugned orders and prays that a time bound disposal of the appeal be ordered.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent in view of the limited prayer has no objection.

11. In view of the fact that the petitioner is involved in the litigation for a considerable period and the present petition is pending since 2024, the petition is disposed of as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for.

12. In case an appeal is filed by the petitioner within three weeks, the appellate authority shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from filing of the appeal.

13. In the eventuality of the petitioner succeeding in the appeal, the amount found due shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 Ch