9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 within four weeks from today - petition allowed. - WP(C) 4952/17 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A.K. CHAWLA JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok K.Bhardwaj and Mr. Manish Kumar Hirani, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, Standing Counsel. S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. In this writ petition, a direction to quash the letter/order issued by the second respondent i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes (hereafter referred to as DVAT Authority ) is sought. A further direction to the respondents to grant permission for the revision of returns for the tax period 2012-13, is also claimed. 2. The petitioner states that it had made genuine inter-state inward branch transfers for the period 2012-13 against F-Form. These transfers amounted to `1.79 crores but were incorrectly reflected in Annexure 2A filed online with the return for June, 2012 and in Column F11.1.3 of Form DVAT 16. Section 28 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter as DVAT Act ) prescribes a time limit for furnishing revised returns i.e. one year from the date end of the Financial Year to which the transactions pertain. The procedure f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act requires a dealer to pay tax under the Act and furnish returns in the prescribed form. Furthermore, Rule 5(iv) read with Rule 8(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, empowers the VAT Department to withhold issuance of F-Form to dealers in the case of concealment of purchase particulars or for furnishing inadequate particulars. It is stated that the right of a dealer in respect of purchased goods to not pay tax or without furnishing a prescribed declaration is not a vested right but is conditional upon fulfillment of all the requirements spelt out by the Statute. In this case, since the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions, the question of granting it the F-Forms, after a time prescribed for revision of the returns, cannot be granted. 6. Learned counsel also distinguished that the judgment in Ingram Micro Pvt. Ltd. (supra) stating that in that case the dealer sought issuance of C-Forms whereas in the present case F-Forms have been sought which are for providing information of transfer of stocks a fact always within the knowledge of a dealer. It is also pointed that while whereas purchase amounts were included in the original returns they were reflected in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to one thousand rupees per day from the day immediately following the expiry of the said period until the person makes an application for registration in the prescribed form, containing such particulars and information and accompanied by such fee, security and other documents as may be prescribed: PROVIDED that the amount of penalty payable under this sub-section shall not exceed one lakh rupees.] (5) If, a registered dealer fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 21 of this Act, the person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum of 1 [five] hundred rupees per day of default subject to a maximum of 2 [ten] thousand rupees. (6) If a registered dealer (a) fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 22 of this Act; or (b) fails to surrender his certificate of registration as provided in sub-section (7) of section 22 of this Act; the registered dealer shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one 3 [thousand] rupees for every day of default subject to a maximum of 4 [twenty five] thousand rupees. (7) If any person falsely represents that he is registered as a dealer under this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Indeed the Petitioner enclosed such an indemnity bond with its letter dated 10th June 2015. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court holds that this was not a case where the Respondent No. 2 was justified in declining to issue C-Forms to the Petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12th June 2015 issued by Respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside and a direction is issued to the Respondent No. 2 to issue to the Petitioner a C-Form pertaining to the aforementioned inter-state purchase transactions undertaken by it in the third and fourth quarter of FY 2010-11 within a period of three weeks from today. 21. If the Respondents desire an indemnity bond to be furnished by the Petitioner in any other format, they will communicate such requirement to the Petitioner not later than two weeks from today and proceed to issue the aforementioned C-Form not later than three weeks from today subject to the Petitioner furnishing such indemnity bond in revised format. 9. In the present case, to what the respondents are not per se contesting the genuineness of the transactions which the petitioner claims to have actually entered into. What is set up as a bar to the relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
