9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt had dismissed the SLP of the respondents/revenue, both on the ground of delay, as well as on merits. On merits, the broad issue which arose for consideration of this Court was whether the respondents/revenue were right in contending that the assessees were required to reverse input tax credits claimed by them on purchases made, on account of credit notes issued by selling dealers, despite the selling dealers having confirmed, that they had not reduced their output tax liabilities - this issue has been decided in favour of the assessees. The impugned order deserves to be set aside - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 11831/2022 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner says that he was a part of the appeals, which were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal via order dated 06.08.2014. 2. The record also reveals, that the unsuccessful assessees had approached this Court, by way of statutory appeals. 2.1 The appeals (lead appeal being ST. Appl. No.76/2014, titled Challenger Computers Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Taxes, Delhi) were disposed of via order dated 21.08.2015. 3. This Court via judgment dated 21.08.2015 reversed the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. It is not in dispute, that the respondents/revenue preferred a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No. 18421/2016, which was dismissed on 21.11.2016, both on the grounds of delay, as well as on the ground that no merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What is not in dispute, is that the petitioner, along with other similarly circumstanced assessees had preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 6.1 The Tribunal, via a common order dated 06.08.2014 dismissed the appeals of the assessees. 6.2 It is at this stage that the petitioner parted way with the other assesses, and did not approach the High Court, by way of a statutory appeal. 7. The other assessees assailed the common order of the Tribunal dated 06.08.2014 by preferring appeals. 7.1 These appeals were taken up together, and disposed of via a common judgment dated 21.08.2015 passed by this Court. 7.2 Via the said judgment, this court reversed the common order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal. 8. As noted in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment orders passed vis-a-vis the petitioner. 14. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is evident that the facts of the case are rather peculiar. 15. While on one hand, the legal issue stands decided in favor of the assessees, generally, which includes the petitioner, the demand, which would have been formally set aside, had the petitioner preferred an appeal with this Court, remains undisturbed. 15.1 In our view, the assessment order [given the aforementioned peculiar circumstances], has to be seen in the backdrop of the decision of this Court, and the fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP of the respondents/revenue, both on the ground of delay, as well as on merits. 15.2 As noted above, it is not as if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
