9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 933 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - compliance with the pre-deposit under Section 74 of the DVAT Act - supply of form C and C-I - grant of opportunity to Petitioner to produce evidence in their support and a personal hearing - principle sof natural justice - HELD THAT - Various contentions have been raised about the supply of form C and C-I. As the appeal is pending we are not going into the fine niceties of the facts and further dissection of the facts. Otherwise also learned counsel for the respondent has also argued in detail that nothing was produced by the petitioner before the Assessing Authority despite several opportunities being granted to them. We are not going into the arguments of both the sides on merits. However suffice would it be to say that the discretion exercised by the Objection Hearing Authority under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act 2004 while issuing direction for deposit of 5% of the amount can by no stretch of imagination be said to be illegal unreasonable or excessive - there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed along with the pending application.
Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order under DVAT Act, 2004 for AY 2014-15, Appeal under Section 74 of DVAT Act, 2004, Waiver of 95% of the amount by Appellate Authority, Petitioner seeking further reduction, Discretion exercised by Objection Hearing Authority under Section 74, Financial capacity of the petitioner to pay the amount. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order passed by the respondents under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. An appeal was filed under Section 74 of the DVAT Act, 2004. The Special Commissioner waived 95% of the amount, directing the petitioner to deposit only 5% of the total demand. The petitioner sought further reduction, arguing for a better case. The court noted contentions regarding the supply of form C and C-I but refrained from delving into the details as the appeal was pending. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner failed to produce evidence before the Assessing Authority despite multiple opportunities. The court declined to consider the merits of the arguments raised by both parties. It held that the discretion exercised by the Objection Hearing Authority under Section 74 of the DVAT Act, 2004 in directing the deposit of 5% of the amount was not illegal, unreasonable, or excessive. The petitioner did not claim financial incapacity to pay the amount. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application. However, the court extended the time for depositing the amount as per the order of the Special Commissioner till 14th January, 2020, as requested by the petitioner's counsel.
|
