HC
holds that interest u/s 42 of Delhi VAT Act on refund of VAT amount accrues
after period specified for processing refunds/returns u/s 38(3)(a) and not from
date of filing return; Observes that sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section
38(3)(a) mandate refund within 1 or 2 months depending upon tax period (i.e.
monthly or quarterly) and Section 42(1) prescribes simple interest payable on
such refund at a rate notified by Government; Harmonious reading of Sections 38
and 42 clearly indicates that interest is to be paid from the date when same is
due to be paid to assessee or date when excess amount was paid, whichever is
later, and date 'when refund is due' would be the date mentioned in Section 38
(i.e. when refund becomes payable); Remarks, since both Sections 38(3) and
42(1) do not refer to the date of filing of return, same obviously cannot be
the starting point for interest payment, and “Obligation of the assessee to pay
tax and date when tax is payable, and the duty and date on which refund is
payable by the Revenue need not coincide and could be different as per the
statute”; Further, elucidates that, said interpretation is not in conflict with
Section 11 which deals with computation formula to calculate tax payable and
empowers dealer to seek adjustment or refund in case of a negative net
tax : Delhi HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bombay High Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Eligibility for Venture Capital Funds
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI is entitled to claim ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment