The issuance of 'F' Forms under tax laws can be denied based on pending tax demands, even if those demands are under legal challenge.

JUDGMENT

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 No. 2 to issue the requisite `F' Forms to the Petitioner in respect of the interstate stock transfers undertaken by the Petitioner during the period starting from April 2016 until June 2017."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as a part of its business operation, from April 2016 until June 2017, the petitioner moved "Bullion" stored in its branches located in the other states of India to its branch located in Delhi, to maintain a single reserve of "Bullion" instead of storing the same in a scattered manner in different branches. The petitioner further asserts that since the transactions do not involve sale of "Bullion to a third party instead, it only involved the transfer of "Bullion" between the two branches of the petitioner Bank, therefore, the petitioner initiated the process of obtaining the "F" Forms for availing the benefit envisaged under Section 6-a of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "CST Act").

3. In Delhi, the VAT Authorities have created an online platform for the purpose of issuance of "F" Forms. The petitioner accessed the said online facility, uploaded the relevant documents and also mentioned the required details, however, the "F" Forms were not issued to the petitioner. Each time the online portal denied the issuance of the "F" Forms on the ground that, "Your following demands are pending. Kindly pay the due amount and update the information on Payment Reconciliation link before submitting request for Central Declaration Forms". On approaching the respondent no. 2, the petitioner was advised to clear all the outstanding VAT demands alongwith the applicable interest and penalty. The petitioner also made representation to the respondents, however, to no avail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the VAT demands against the petitioner is primarily on account of VAT on sale of vehicles repossessed by the petitioner from its customers. The said demand for the financial years 2005-06; 2006-07; and 2008-09 is pending challenge before the Supreme Court in form of Special Leave Petition(s), being SLP(C) 40 of 2017; 37919 of 2016; and 38220 of 2016. The Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 05.01.2017, has restrained the respondents from taking any kind of coercive action against the petitioner for recovering the said demands. He submits that demand on similar basis, for the financial 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 coun