Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, POONAM A.BAMBA
R.B. Santani – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests amendment of tax returns. (Para 1) |
| 2. similar cases dictate treatment of c-forms. (Para 2) |
| 3. release of f-forms directed, subject to slp order. (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petition disposed as per aforementioned terms. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:
"(a) Issue writ of mandamus and certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent 1 and Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to revise its return for 3rd quarter and 4th quarter of 2016-2017 to the extent that the purchase mentioned in column C forms could be made in column of F Form or the Respondent rectify the mistake of the petitioner their self.
(b) In the alternative, the Respondent I be directed to issue F form instead of C form of 3rd quarter and 4th quarter for Assessment Year 2016-2017 to the amount of Rs.10,885,365/- and 20,960,544/- to the Petitioner."
2. Counsel for the parties inform us that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by various judgments of this court, including the order dated 10.09.2018, passed in W.P.(C.) No. 9474/2018, titled Allied Automation Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commis
Court emphasizes the necessity for regulatory compliance in tax returns and supports rectification of statutory forms based on precedent rulings.
Taxpayers have the right to rectify documentation and receive a personal hearing during assessment processes.
The timely consideration of pending applications by regulatory authorities is essential for justice and administrative efficiency.
The principles of natural justice require that parties be given an opportunity to present their case, which was violated due to technical issues in this instance.
The court directed the rectification of tax records under its supervisory jurisdiction, based on clear evidence that a significant tax payment was misattributed to the wrong assessment year.
The court ruled that an Assessing Officer must wait for the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions before passing a final assessment order, even if objections are not communicated timely, emphasizing ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
