2022 (4) TMI 1033 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of writ of demand issued u/s 137 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - no valid notice of default was served on the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Once the objection is filed, the concerned authority will hear the petitioner, as to whether in the given circumstances, the petitioner would be required to make the pre-deposit of the tax and interest demanded of it, and, if so, the amount that would be remitted towards pre-deposit before hearing the objection. Since the petitioner had approached this Court and the petitioner is relegated to avail an alternate remedy, the concerned authority we are sure will take a benign view and, accordingly, exclude the time spent in this Court. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of writ of demand under Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and Delhi Value Added Tax Act 2004.
2. Alleged errors in the notice(s) of default assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956/DVAT Act.
3. Availability of alternate remedy under Section 74 of the DVAT Act.
4. Pre-deposit requirement before hearing objections.
5. Exclusion of time spent in court for calculating limitation.
6. Disposal of the writ petition and pending application.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a writ of demand dated 19.09.2020 under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and a recovery certificate issued under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act 2004, totaling &8377; 3,34,46,943 for the period between 2007-08 and 2014-15. The petitioner contended that no valid notice of default was served.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about errors in the notice(s) of default assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956/DVAT Act. The court noted discrepancies in the documents provided and acknowledged the petitioner's grievances.

3. The respondent argued that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 74 of the DVAT Act. The court allowed the petitioner to file an objection under Section 74, ensuring that the concerned authority would decide on any pre-deposit requirement before hearing the objections.

4. The court directed the concerned authority to exclude the time spent in court when calculating the limitation for filing objections. It was emphasized that the authority should consider relevant orders passed by the Supreme Court in a specific case for this purpose.

5. Considering the petitioner's approach to the court and the availability of an alternate remedy, the court disposed of the writ petition with the expectation that the concerned authority would take a favorable view and exclude the time spent in court for the petitioner.

6. The judgment concluded by stating that the pending application would stand closed, marking the end of the legal proceedings related to the writ petition.