Consult Us For Construction
Case Law on Works Contract
HC allows refund claim of assessee, engaged in execution of works-contract, of excess credit which was inadvertently reflected as ‘carry forward’ in next tax period return instead of ‘refund’ for subsequent period under Delhi Value Tax Act (Act);
States that, despite this Court’s order on a previous occasion to refund the amount in a time bound manner, Revenue’s action of issuing order to deny claims on ground of inadequate/unsatisfactory material is untenable;
Referring to ruling in Shaila Enterprises, accepts assessee’s plea that the default assessment became final since period of limitation for making assessment on merits expired, and hence there exists “no scope to legally scrutinize the refund claim”;
Remarks, “The pattern and structure of the DVAT Act is such that if an assessment order is not passed, the returns acquire the status of a default assessment; if any unadjusted credit exists, the assessse’s right to refund crystallizes” while finding Revenue’s argument that refund is impermissible because the period for revising returns has passed as “utterly frivolous and baseless”;
Holds that, fact that excess credit amount was wrongly shown does not preclude assessee's basic refund claim, on which it maintained a consistent stand, while elucidating further that, "revenue cannot hold on to the monies which do not bear the character of a valid levy; they have to be refunded” .