9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 258 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking to rectify the Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) return for column 11 - seeking issuance of correct Form F to the Petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in H.M. SALES CORPORATION VERSUS B COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXES 2017 (7) TMI 1358 - DELHI HIGH COURT had in similar facts permitted the petitioner to rectify its return. The petitioner is permitted to rectify its return even at this stage and its clarifications are directed to be accepted. Consequently, the return filed by the petitioner for the fourth quarter 2015-16 shall stand rectified accordingly - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Seeking rectification of Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) return for column 11 and issuance of correct Form 'F'. Analysis: The petitioner, a trader in plywood, transferred goods to Delhi from outside, not constituting a 'sale' under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The DVAT return for the fourth quarter of 2015-16 was filed erroneously in Column 11 clause 13 instead of clause 3. Despite multiple requests, the respondents did not rectify the mistake or issue the Form 'F'. The petitioner emphasized the error was unintentional, with no attempt to evade tax liability or violate laws, citing precedent from H.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes. The respondents argued that the mistake was by the petitioner, who should have revised the return under Section 28 of the DVAT Act instead of seeking rectification. The court referred to a previous judgment where rectification was allowed for a similar mistake, emphasizing the bona fide nature of the error. Consequently, the court permitted the petitioner to rectify the return for the fourth quarter of 2015-16, directing the VATO to issue the correct Form 'F' within a specified timeframe. The court's decision was based on the principle that the mistake was bona fide, and the petitioner was entitled to rectify the return even at a later stage. The judgment allowed the petitioner to rectify the return for the specified quarter and obtain the necessary Form 'F' for the transactions in question. The case was disposed of with directions for rectification and issuance of the correct form, emphasizing compliance with the law and rectifying unintentional errors in tax filings.
|
