9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 980 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - 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 - HELD THAT - There is complete sloth and procrastination on the part of the respondents/revenue - the spirit of the law has, certainly, not been adhered to. 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 subsection (8) of Section 74 of the Act, read with Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents/revenue to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the judgment passed today.
Issues:
Adjudication of objections to default assessment under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Analysis: The petitioner's principal grievance was the non-adjudication of objections filed against a notice of default assessment of tax, interest, and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Act. The petitioner highlighted various communications sent to the respondents for adjudication of these objections. The notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued concerning the fourth quarter of the financial year 2012-13, setting the tax at Rs. 4,55,970/- and the penalty at Rs. 3,99,782/-. The petitioner filed objections under Section 74 of the Act on 20.06.2014, with reminders sent for disposal on multiple occasions, citing relevant sections of the Act. However, there had been no progress in the matter, leading to the petition. The Act stipulates strict timelines for the disposal of objections. Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 74 require the objections to be decided within three months of receipt, with provisions for the assessee to request a decision within fifteen days if not resolved. If no decision is made within fifteen days of such notice, the objections are deemed allowed. The respondent acknowledged these provisions but argued that the notice under sub-section (8) should be issued in the prescribed Form DVAT-41 and personally served on the Commissioner as per Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules. However, the respondent failed to effect service on the Commissioner as required. The Court noted the respondent's procrastination and lack of adherence to the spirit of the law. Despite the technicalities raised by the respondent regarding the service of notice, the Court emphasized the unreasonable delay of eight years in addressing the objections. The Court directed the respondents to create a portal or online mechanism for intimation of notices under sub-section (8) of Section 74, considering the challenges of physical interaction. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the respondents to dispose of the objections within 15 days of receiving the judgment. The authorized representative of the petitioner was required to appear before the Commissioner for a speaking order. Due to the respondent's procrastination, costs of Rs. 7,500/- were imposed, to be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Fund within two weeks. Non-compliance would lead to the matter being brought before the Court.
|
