9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processing of edible oil and coffee. The petitioner has offices and operations in twenty-one States. In JAIN MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX ANR. [ 2016 (6) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this court had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions involving the similar issue by following the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The said decision is binding on this Court and thus, the benefit of the C-Forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner - Insofar as the remaining 9 C-forms ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same to be communicated to Gujarat VAT department. c) Issue contempt notice against the R1 towards disobeying the law laid down in W.P.(C) 1358/2016 Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner Value Added Tax and cancelling the 4 C forms as stated in para 14. d) To communicate the validity of the 9 C forms (as stated in para 14) which are still valid and not cancelled, to the Gujarat VAT department/R2. 4. The controversy in the present petition relates to transactions entered into in the year 2015-16, whereby the petitioner had supplied goods to certain dealers in Delhi, who were at the material time, registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter 'CST Act'). The petitioner is registered as a dealer under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). 10. This Court is informed that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the respondents in respect of some of those decisions; the lead matter being the SLP arising from the decision in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 7563/2018, decided on 23.07.2018. 11. It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). The said decision is binding on this Court and thus, the benefit of the C-Forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner. 12. Inso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
