9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRestoration and validation of cancelled Statutory Form C issued to the Petitioner - validity of Statutory Form 9C - denial of benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner on the ground that the said forms were cancelled by the Delhi VAT Authorities. HELD THAT - It is relevant to state that the respondent has not questioned the petitioner s claim that it is a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd, a reputed company dealing in agri-based commodities, and is engaged in processing of edible oil and coffee. The petitioner has offices and operations in twenty-one States. In JAIN MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX ANR. 2016 (6) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT this court had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions involving the similar issue by following the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The said decision is binding on this Court and thus, the benefit of the C-Forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner - Insofar as the remaining 9 C-forms are concerned, it is conceded that the said forms had not been cancelled. The counter affidavit is silent as to the reasons for denying the benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner - A plain reading of the counter affidavit indicates that it proceeds on the basis that the matter is sub judice in the appealpreferred against the decision of this court in M/S JAI GOPAL INTERNATIONAL IMPEX PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX ANR. 2018 (7) TMI 1861 - DELHI HIGH COURT . There is no reason for denying the benefit of C-forms to the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had not supplied the goods in question - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of C-forms by Gujarat VAT Department based on cancellation by Delhi VAT Authorities. 2. Interpretation of retrospective cancellation of C-forms. 3. Applicability of previous court decisions on cancellation of C-forms. 4. Allegations of sub judice status in an appeal. 5. Granting relief to the petitioner and directing authorities to ensure availability of C-form benefits. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the denial of the benefit of C-forms by the Gujarat VAT Department to the petitioner based on the cancellation of forms by the Delhi VAT Authorities. The petitioner had supplied goods at a concessional rate of sales tax against C-forms, but the benefit was denied retrospectively. 2. The controversy arises from the interpretation of retrospective cancellation of C-forms. The petitioner contended that only four out of the 13 C-forms in question were cancelled, and the remaining nine forms were still valid. The respondent argued that the registration of the dealers who issued the remaining C-forms had been cancelled. 3. The court referred to a previous judgment in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax, where it was held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. The court noted that the respondents had not appealed this decision, making it binding. The court emphasized that the benefit of C-forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner. 4. The respondent raised the issue of sub judice status in an appeal related to a different case. However, the court found no reason to deny the benefit of C-forms to the petitioner, especially since there was no allegation that the goods were not supplied as claimed by the petitioner. 5. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, directing the concerned authorities to ensure the availability of the C-form benefits to the petitioner. The court clarified that this relief did not prevent the authorities from pursuing investigations against purchasing dealers registered in Delhi for tax recovery, as per the law. The court rejected the petitioner's request for contempt action against the respondents.
|
