9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 228 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Form C - Gazette Notification No. D.L. 33002/99 dated 23.2.2018 - Concessional rate of tax - respondent No. 1 declared the C form as obsolete and invalid vide notification dated 22.02.2018 with immediate effect and the same was notified in Delhi Gazette on 23.02.2018 - case of the respondents is that the aforesaid C form has been declared as obsolete and invalid on account of the dealings of respondent No. 4 being found to be unexplained and suspicious. HELD THAT - This Court had the occasion to deal with similar issues and grievances in MAA JAGDAMBA TRADERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX 2019 (7) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT and in the case of SHEEL CHAND AGROILS (P) LTD. VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ANR 2019 (8) TMI 523 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that Once the form that has been issued is utilized, the question of subsequently declaring such used forms as obsolete would not arise. The notification dated 23.02.2018 declaring the aforesaid C form to be obsolete and invalid is quashed - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to the declaration of C form as obsolete and invalid. Analysis: The petitioner, a dealer in iron and steel, sold goods to respondent No. 4 at a concessional tax rate under the CST Act, 1956 against form C. The respondent No. 1 declared the C form as obsolete and invalid, along with canceling the Registration Certificates of respondent No. 4 retrospectively. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash this declaration. The respondents justified the declaration of the C form as obsolete and invalid due to suspicious dealings by respondent No. 4. The court referenced previous cases to support the respondents' stance. The court acknowledged that the legal issue raised by the petitioner had been addressed in earlier judgments. In its decision, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notification declaring the C form as obsolete and invalid. However, the court also noted the suspicions surrounding the transactions between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Therefore, the court left it to the respondents to take appropriate legal action regarding the said transactions, emphasizing compliance with the law. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by quashing the notification but allowing the authorities to proceed lawfully concerning the transactions in question.
|
