9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. Compliance with the proviso to Rule 5(4) of the CST (Delhi) Rules - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the respondents have now passed the Order dated 16.06.2021 giving reasons for refusing the facility of issuance of the F Forms to the petitioner. The said Order is not in challenged. Challenge to Rule 5(4) of the CST (Delhi) Rules - HELD THAT:- Section 13(3) and 13(4)(e) of the CST Act empowers the State Governments to make rules, including specifying the conditions subject to which Form F may be obtained - It cannot therefore, at least at this stage be said that Rule 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules is ultra vires the CST Act. Application dismissed. - W.P.(C) 5830/2021 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through : Mr. Arjyadeep Roy, Adv. Respondents Through : Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC (C) for GNCTD with Mr. Manas Bhatnagar, Adv. NAVIN CHAWLA, J. CM APPL. No.18276/2021 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief: Allow the present application and grant an interim relief to the Petitioner by directing the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 2009-10; 2011-12; and 2012-13, is pending challenge before this Court in the VAT Appeal(s), being 04 of 2021; 01 of 2021; and 05 of 2021, respectively. He submits that though there is no stay of demand granted by this Court in the said appeals, in view of the Order of the Supreme Court in the abovementioned Special Leave Petitions, the said demand cannot be enforced against the petitioner. He submits that demand on the similar issue, for the financial year 2013-14, is pending challenge before the Objection Hearing Authority under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the DVAT Act) and an Order of stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner subject to pre-deposit, which has duly been complied with. For the financial years 2014-15; 2015-16; and 2016-17 the same is again in challenge before the Objection Hearing Authority, however, there is no stay in operation against the demand. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the demand against the petitioner also relates to the deduction of tax at source in case of a supply of works contract service and tax treatment of securitisation in terms of the provisions stipulated un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for various financial years. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny the said chart. The same is reproduced herein below: Tax Period Total Demand towards tax, interest and penalty imposed under the provisions of the DVAT an CST Act. Status 05-06 490,41,20,330/- On the issue of Sale of repossessed motor vehicle, Matter is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) 40/2017. No coercive action to be taken against the recovery of the demand vide order dated 05.01.2017. However, on the issues of TDS on work contract and taxability of securitization are currently pending before the ATVAT. 06-07 22,71,48,252/- On the issue of Sale of repossessed motor vehicle, Matter is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(c) 37919/2016. No coercive action to be taken against the recovery of the demand vide order dated 05.01.2017. However, on the issues of TDS on work contract, the dealer filed rectification before the Assessing Authority on 31.03.2021. Prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al tax and interest to the tune of ₹ 99 Lakhs. In other words, if there was a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment on the issue involved, then the dealer would not have deposited the above amount. The Tribunal while disposing the stay application has appreciated that the SC has not granted any stay on the issue rather it was on recovery of the amount, not otherwise. 12-13 93,03,510/- The Dealer has approached the High Court against the order dated 30.01.2020 who thereby upheld the issue of Sale of repossessed motor vehicle meaning thereby demand towards tax, interest and penalty are confirmed. There is no stay granted by the HC against the above order till now. It is worthwhile to mention that the dealer had filed the stay application before the Hon ble ATVAT in which he stated that an amount of ₹ 99 lakhs has been deposited out of total tax and interest to the tune of ₹ 99 Lakhs. In other words, if there was a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment on the issue involved, then the dealer would not have deposited the above amount. The Tribunal while disposing the stay appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) and Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 13. Rule 8(2) of the CST (Delhi) Rules states that the provisions of sub-rules (2) to (4) of Rule 5 of the CST (Delhi) Rules shall also apply to certificate in Form F . The same is reproduced herein below: 8. Authority from whom Declaration Form F may be obtained, used and maintenance of record of such Forms and matters incidental thereto xxxx (2) The provision of sub-rules (2) to (4) of Rule 5 in relation to Declaration Form C referred to therein shall also apply to certificate in Form F , with such change, as circumstances required. 14. Rule 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules reads as under: 5. Authority from which Declaration Form C may be obtained, use, custody and maintenance of records of such forms and matters incidental thereto. xxxxx (4) If the applicant for Declaration Form C has, at the time of making the application- xxxxx (ii) defaulted in making the payment of the amount of tax assessed, re-assessed or the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 5(4) of the CST (Delhi) Rules in spite of the petitions being filed by the petitioners therein. The same is not the position in the present case. 18. As far as the challenge to Rule 5(4) of the CST (Delhi) Rules is concerned prima facie, we do not find any force in the same. Section 13(3) and 13(4)(e) of the CST Act empowers the State Governments to make rules, including specifying the conditions subject to which Form F may be obtained. The same are reproduced herein below: 13. Power to make rules. - xxxxx (3) The State Government may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made under sub-section (1), to carry out the purposes of this Act. (4) In particular and without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub section (3), the State Government may make rules for all or any of the following purposes, namely:- xxxx (e) the authority from whom, the conditions subject to which and fees subject to payment of which any form of certificate prescribed under clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 or of declaration prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6A or subsection (4) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
