$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010118932026 + W.P.(C) 3892/2026 M/S NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arif Ahmed Khan, Ms. Shaziya Fahim, Ms. Saira Tagra, Mr. Afroz Ahmad Khan, Mr. Jitendra Kumar & Ms. Gauri Grover, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta & Ms Rashi Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This writ petition in the nature of certiorari is filed against the notice of default assessment and penalty dated 31.03.2018 issued under Section 32 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no.2 issued a notice under Section 59(2) of the Act for seeking additional information for the reconciliation of Form-09 for the assessment year 2013-14. The notice dated 31.03.1018 was issued stating therein that in absence of production of statutory forms and the supporting documents substantiating the inter-state sales and stock transfers, the transaction against C & F forms were treated as local sales taxable @5%. The intra-state exempt sale was also disallowed and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,89,40,865/- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:59:43 Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner on 23.04.2018 filed objections under Section 74(1) of the Act against the notice of default. 3. On 29.01.2019, the competent authority while hearing the objections directed the petitioner to deposit of 5% of the total disputed amount. The direction was complied with on 11.02.2019. The objections were accepted on 03.07.2019, and the notice of default was set aside, the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Section 34(2) of the Act commences with a non-obstante clause and provides for completion of assessment of tax by the Commissioner within one year from the date of the decision of the appellate tribunal or court where the assessment is required in consequence of or to give effect of the decision of the appellate tribunal or court. The respondent failed to do the needful within the time stipulated under Section 34(2) of the Act. The present petition is filed with a prayer that the assessment proceedings pursuant to the remand can no longer be continued or acted upon and the respondent be directed to refund the pre-deposit amount along with interest. 5. On 27.03.2026, the following order was passed:- “CM APPL. 19103/2026 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 3892/2026 1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004, and was subjected to assessment proceedings for the year 2013-14, wherein a demand of Rs. 10,89,02,335/- towards tax and interest and a penalty of Rs. 6,84,57,228/- was levied. 2. The petitioner objected to the aforesaid assessment pursuant to the statutory proceedings provided under Sections This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:59:43 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act. 3. The operation of the assessment came to be stayed, subject to the deposit of 5% of the disputed tax and interest, in view of provisions of Section 74(1)(b) of the DVAT Act. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Sub-Section (2) of Section 34 of the DVAT Act mandates the respondent to complete the proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation of one year. 5. Once the same is not completed within a period of one year, the necessary sequel is that the demand cannot be enforced against the petitioner, much less the continuation of the assessment proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of “Shaila Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax” reported in (2016) 94 VST 367 (Del). 7. It is further claimed that the sequel of above is that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the tax along with interest, as the amount was deposited pursuant to the order passed in the proceedings which can be said to have been lapsed having suffered the limitation. 8. Issue notice to the respondents. 9. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel waives notice for respondents. 10. List on 16th July 2026.” 6. In the affidavit filed, the respondents have not specifically denied that the issue that after expiry of the statutory period of one year as per Section 34(2) of the Act the proceedings pursuant to the remand cannot be continued, and this issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shaila Enterprises v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax (2016) 94 VST 367 (Del). It is stated that in the eventuality of the petitioner filing an application seeking refund of the pre-deposit amount, it shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:59:43 7. In Shaila Enterprises (supra), it was held as under:- “17. It was pointed out that, in terms of Section 34(2) of the DVAT Act, there is no power with the OHA to remand the matter to the AO. In the event of a remand ordered by the Court or Appellate Tribunal, the fresh decision on remand was required to be taken within one year. It was volunteered by learned counsel for the Petitioner that notwithstanding the above legal position, even if the Petitioner were to assume without admitting that such a power exists with an OHA then in any event the AO was required to pass an order afresh within a maximum period of one year after the date of the order of the OHA. Clearly in the present case no fresh assessment order was passed nor was an order of refund was passed within one year of the date of the order of the OHA. 18. With the notices of default assessment creating the demand by notices dated 5th, 6th and 7th January 2011 for the period 2007-2008 ceasing to exist by virtue of the order dated 25th June 2013 and with no fresh assessment order being passed, there was no legal impediment any longer in granting refund to the Petitioner in respect of the claim made along with its return filed for the month of January 2008. The AO, obviously did not realise the implications of his failure to pass fresh assessment order in terms of the order dated 25th June 2013 of the OHA. 19. This Court has in a series of judgments emphasised the mandatory nature of the time limits under Section 38 of the DVAT Act for processing of the refunds. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax (2010) 31 VST 475 (Del), Lotus Impex v. Commissioner DT&T (2016) 89 VST 450 (Del); Dish TV India Ltd. v. GNCTD (2016) 92 VST 83 (Del), Nucleus Marketing & Communication v. Commissioner of DVAT [decision dated 12th July 201 6 in W. P. (C) 7511/2015] and recently in Prime Papers and Packers v. Commissioner, VAT [decision dated 28th July 2016 in W. P. (C) No. 6013 of 2016]. It has further been clarified by the Court that any action the DT&T proposes to take in the form of reopening the assessment, the period within which the refund is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:59:43 to be issued will have to be taken into account.” (emphasis supplied) 8. There being no subsisting demand the respondent has no ground for retaining the pre-deposit made by the petitioner for hearing of the objections. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the eventuality of the petitioner filing an application seeking refund of the pre-deposit within two weeks from today, the respondent shall process the same within six weeks thereafter and the amount found refundable along with interest, if any, shall be paid within a further period of four weeks. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 Ch This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2026 at 11:59:43