Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 143
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, R.V.EASWAR, JJ.
AARTEE TRANPORT CO. PVT. LTD - Petitioner
Versus
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ORS. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7259/2012
Decided On : 31.01.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Rajesh Mahna with Mr.Ruchir Bhatia
For the Respondents: Mr Vineet Bhatia
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the authority to address the issues raised by the petitioner and to consider the applicability of specific sections of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
Headnote:
Exemption - Value Added Tax - Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, Section 74(8) and 74(9)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order and obtain a refund under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The case had a history of previous petitions and orders related to the same matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order did not address the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 74(8) and 74(9) of the Act, and therefore set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Objection Hearing Authority for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Section 74(8) and 74(9) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the failure of the Objection Hearing Authority to address the petitioner's raised points.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the impugned order to address the issues raised by the petitioner and the need for the Objection Hearing Authority to reconsider the matter, giving due consideration to the petitioner's points.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Objection Hearing Authority to reconsider the issues raised by the petitioner and to dispose of the matter within three weeks.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 18700/2012
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of. CM 689/2013
This is an application for amendment of the writ petition as mentioned in the previous order. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the amendments being carried out. Consequently, this application is allowed. The amended writ petition, which is annexed along with this application, is taken on record.
This application is disposed of.
WP(C) 7259/2012
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Value Added Tax Officer as also the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Objection Hearing Authority. It is also prayed that a direction be given to the effect that the objections filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.7.2006 be deemed to have been allowed in view of the provisions of Section 74(8) and 74(9) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. A prayer for refund of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs which has been deposited by the petitioner, alongwith interest accrued thereon, has also been made.
3. This case has a chequered history inasmuch as this is the third round before this Court. In the first round, this Court disposed of the petitioner’s writ petition (W.P.(C) No.10434/2006) on 5.10.2010 by observing that the question which arose for consideration was whether the goods were actually sold in Delhi or only transported through Delhi to reach another destination. It was the case of the petitioner that it is not a dealer and is only transporter and the goods were never sold in Delhi, but were meant for transportation to other states. This Court on 5.10.2010 observed that the said inquiry could not be carried out in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently it directed the Value Added Tax Officer to conduct such an inquiry on production of documents before him after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The amount of Rs.4 lakhs which had been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court was directed to be transferred to the Value Added Tax Authority. It was also directed that the competent authority should complete the aforesaid exercise within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed on that day.
4. The Value Added Tax Officer passed the order on 8.11.2011 which was challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8929/2011. That writ petition was also disposed of by an order dated 23.12.2011 with the following directions:-
“10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the petitioner should be entitled to exclude the period during which the Writ Petition Nos. 10418/2006 and 10434/2006 had remained pending before this Court and the period taken up in the enquiry proceedings till order dated 8th November, 2011 was passed, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If the aforesaid period is excluded, then the petitioner can file objections within the period of limitation specified in Section 74(4) of the Act.
11. In these circumstances and keeping in view the earlier order passed by the High Court dated 5th October, 2010 read with order dated 29th November, 2010, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file objections on or before 6th January, 2012. In case objections are filed within the aforesaid period, the same will not be dismissed on the ground that they are barred by limitation, as we have excluded the period during which the aforesaid writ petitions had remained pending and the period during which the inquiry was conducted. It is clarified that till the objections are disposed of, no further recovery will be made. It is also clarified that the Division Bench while passing the order dated 5th October, 2010 had not commented upon or expressed any view on mer
