9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 643 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of notice issued - principal grievance of the petitioner is that the objections filed in the matter to the notice of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, have not been adjudicated upon, up until now - HELD THAT - While Mr Satyakam may have a talking point as to the mechanics set forth in the Act for service of notice under sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Act, there is certainly an unpardonable delay on the part of the respondents in dealing with the objections; eight years is too long a time for the respondents to not have moved the matter. Given the fact that the physical interaction often, for various reasons, is not possible with the Commissioner, the respondents/revenue are directed to create a portal/online mechanism for intimation of notices issued under sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Act, read with Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Petitioner's objections not adjudicated upon under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Analysis: The petitioner raised concerns regarding the non-adjudication of objections filed against the notice of default assessment of tax, interest, and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Act. The petitioner highlighted communication sent to the respondents for adjudication of the objections. The notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2013-14, amounting to Rs. 16,58,005. Objections to the notice were filed by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Act in 2014, with reminders sent in 2021. The petitioner emphasized the provisions of Section 74(7), (8), and (9) of the Act, which set strict timelines for disposal of objections. The respondent acknowledged the strict timelines set by the Act for disposing of objections. Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 74 mandate decisions on objections within specific timeframes. If the objections are not decided within the stipulated period, the assessee can request a decision within fifteen days. Failure to decide within this timeframe deems the objections as allowed. The respondent argued that the notice under sub-section (8) of Section 74 should be issued in the prescribed Form DVAT-41 and personally served on the Commissioner, as per Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules. The court observed a significant delay and inaction on the part of the respondents/revenue in dealing with the objections. The court criticized the lack of adherence to the spirit of the law and highlighted the unpardonable delay of eight years in resolving the matter. While acknowledging the mechanics of serving notices under the Act, the court directed the respondents to adapt to modern times by creating a portal or online mechanism for intimation of notices under Section 74 of the Act, along with Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the objections within 15 days and imposed costs of Rs. 7,500 on the respondents/revenue, to be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Fund within two weeks. Non-compliance would lead to further court action. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timely adjudication of objections under the Act, criticizes the delay on the part of the revenue authorities, and emphasizes the need for modernization in the process of serving notices. The court's directive aims to ensure prompt resolution of the petitioner's objections and holds the respondents accountable for their inaction.
|
