2020 (10) TMI 215 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection by respondent authorities of petitioner s request for correction of the return filed for first quarter of Year 2017-18 - refusal to give statutory forms under Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent no.2 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return of first Quarter for the Financial Year 2017-18. However, this direction shall remain suspended till the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, taken note of hereinabove, are decided and this direction shall abide by the decision that the Supreme Court renders. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to rejection of request for correction of return for the first quarter of Year 2017-18 and refusal to provide statutory forms under Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's request for correction of the return filed for the first quarter of Year 2017-18 and the refusal to provide statutory forms under Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules. The petitioner sought a direction to allow the revision of returns for the year 2017-18 as per the provisions of DVAT Act and Rules.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the failure to mention details of Inter-State branch transfers in the filed returns led to the request for revision. The respondent's denial of the revision was deemed contrary to the provisions of DVAT Act and Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules allowing the issuance of forms.

3. Reference was made to a previous judgment directing the release of a specific form 'F' within two weeks. However, it was noted that an SLP against that judgment was admitted and pending before the Supreme Court.

4. The respondent's counsel highlighted challenges to previous judgments before the Supreme Court and the stay orders issued on the operation of those judgments. The interim orders suspended directions issued by the High Court until the Supreme Court's decisions were made.

5. After hearing both parties, the High Court directed the respondent to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in the return for the first quarter of the Financial Year 2017-18. However, this direction was suspended until the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court were decided, and the High Court's decision would abide by the Supreme Court's ruling.

6. The High Court disposed of the writ petition and pending application with the given direction. The order was to be uploaded on the website immediately, and a copy was to be forwarded to the counsel via email.