9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e C Forms have been issued in respect of different items such as gitti, grit cotton seed cake. It is material to note that the VATO did not consider the judgements relied upon by the petitioner. Whether the petitioner could be denied the benefit of the C Forms on the ground that the same have not been verified, or on the basis of the mismatch of the products? - HELD THAT:- In Pentex Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi [ 2013 (5) TMI 566 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , this court had referred to the decision in the case of State of Madras v. M/s Radio and Electrical Ltd Anr. [ 1966 (4) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT] and held that the dealer claiming the benefit of ST-I Form was required to verify that the purchasing deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of NCT Delhi under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter DVAT Act ) for the fourth quarter of the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018, as being violative of Article 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Factual Context 2. M/s Mangalam Traders is the proprietorship concerns of Mr. Raj Kumar (hereafter the petitioner ). He is engaged in the business of inter-State trading of cosmetics, toiletries, disinfectant, deodorants, drugs, medicines, fruit jams, insect repellents, mosquito coils, ready mix food items and washing soaps under the name and style of Mangalam Traders. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the DVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of the petitioner within the statutory period. In case there is a delay in the process of refund claim of the petitioner beyond the statutory period, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application in these writ petitions and ask for revival With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. The petitioner furnished the physical forms, and the respondents passed a refund order dated 11.12.2017 for the first quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-2018, wherein the refund amount of ₹20,86,966 was allowed after adjusting ₹3,60,884/- against the claim of refund of ₹24,47,850. 6. The petitioner claims that although the said refund order has been passed but the same has not been credite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Objection Hearing Authority (hereafter the OHA ) but the same was disposed of by an order dated 18.07.2019. The OHA remanded the matter to the assessing authority with the direction that the assessing authority shall pass a well-reasoned and speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 11. Thereafter, the concerned VATO issued notices under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act and passed the impugned assessment orders dated 29.08.2020. A plain reading of the impugned orders indicates that they are substantially in similar terms as the order dated 11.04.2018. 12. A perusal of the impugned assessment orders indicates that the benefit of C Forms has been denied to the petitioner in respect of certain inter-State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al question, to be addressed, is whether the petitioner could be denied the benefit of the C Forms on the ground that the same have not been verified, or on the basis of the mismatch of the products. 17. The said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. M/s Radio and Electrical Ltd Anr. (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:- 14. The Act seeks to impose tax on transactions, amongst others, of sale and purchase in inter-State trade and commerce. Though the tax under the Act is levied primarily from the seller, the burden is ultimately passed on the consumers of goods because it enters into the price paid by them. Parliament with a view to reduce the burden on the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed authority who issued the certificate of registration acted properly, or ascertain whether the purchaser, notwithstanding the declaration, was likely to use the goods for a purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the certificate in Form C There is nothing in the Act or the Rules that for infraction of the law committed by the purchasing dealer by misapplication of the goods after he purchased them, or for any fraudulent misrepresentation by him, penalty may be visited upon the selling dealer. 18. In Pentex Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi: ILR (2013) 3 Del 2296, this court had referred to the decision in the case of State of Madras v. M/s Radio and Electrical Ltd Anr. (supra) and held that the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
