9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97/2017 & C.M. No. 20095/2017 (Stay) & W.P.(C) 4599/2017 & C.M. No. 20099/2017 (Stay) - - - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate with Mr. Virag Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Manmeet Singh Arora, Advocate with Ms. Anita Bharal, VATO, Ward No.203. O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: C.M. No. 20096/2017( for exemption) in W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017 C.M. No. 20100/2017(for exemption) in W.P.(C) No. 4599/2017 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017 W.P.(C) No. 4599/2017 2. These two petitions are filed by AIMIL Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The prayers in the W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017 are as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0th June, 2006 (1st Quarter of Assessment Year ( AY ) 2006-07) with a demand of tax of ₹ 2,57,068/-. On 15th March, 2010 for the 2nd Quarter of AY 2006-07, another default assessment notice was issued demanding tax in the sum of ₹ 1,58,936/- for the tax period 1st July, 2006 to 30th September, 2006. On the same date, demands were raised for the 3rd and 4th Quarter of AY 2006-07 vide separate orders for the periods 1st October, 2006 to 31st December, 2006 and 1st January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007, this time including interest on account of denial of export benefits. 6. Aggrieved by the default assessment for the tax and interest under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( CST Act ) four objections were filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 36 of the DVAT Rules. It is only on 7th March, 2017 that the impugned writ of demand was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ward No. 203 calling upon the Petitioner to pay an amount of ₹ 59,41,468/- for the period of AY 200607, ₹ 89,33,886/- for the period of 2007-08 and other amounts due for the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This was followed by an order dated 12th April 2017 whereby the VATO without giving any hearing passed an order imposing tax of ₹ 15,48,353/- and interest of ₹ 23,17,439 therein. In W.P.(C) No. 4597/2017, the Petitioner has challenged the said orders insofar as it raises the demand for AY 2006-07. 8. As far as the W.P.(C) No.4599/2017 is concerned, the facts are more or les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to present the above mentioned statutory forms and other documents as per law and due verification for admissibility thereof. The Objector is directed to appear before the AA/NA on 31.07.2012. 10. Here again, nothing happened for nearly 5 years. The impugned writ of demand was issued on 7th March, 2017 which has been referred to hereinabove. This was followed by a writ of demand dated 12th April 2017 whereby the VATO without hearing the Petitioner passed an order imposing tax of ₹ 28,99,519/- and interest of ₹ 39,03,626. 11. This Court has, in similar circumstances, in its judgment in Shaila Enterprises v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax (2016) 94 VST 367 (Del) set aside the demands after observing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty due under this Act except by the making of an assessment for the amount. In the present case, the assessment earlier made was set aside. In the present case, on 12th April 2017, the VATO further directed the Petitioner to pay the demanded amount of tax and interest for each of the AYs in question i.e., AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08. These orders, too, could not have been passed without proper assessment being made pursuant to the OHA s earlier orders dated 24th June, 2011 and 18th July, 2012. 15. Mr. Manmeet Singh Arora, learned counsel for the Respondent DVAT Department submitted that the above issues could be examined by the OHA. With the impugned orders bristling with so many obvious illegalities, the question of the Petitioner now be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
