SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
R.B. Santani - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11470 of 2019
Decided On : 06-04-2022




Judicial precedent establishes the entitlement of taxpayers to correct their tax returns through appropriate Forms, maintaining adherence to previous court directions.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Value Added Tax Act - Writ petition regarding rectification of tax returns and issuance of F Forms instead of C Forms for assessment years 2016-2017 - The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct its returns as per previous judgments stating that applicants are entitled to a similar direction for release of Forms. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Legal Principles - Issuance of appropriate Forms is essential for rectifying tax-related returns, as established in previous judgments, emphasizing adherence to past judicial instructions in similar nature. (Para 2.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to revise tax returns for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016-2017, specifically requesting the correction to apply F Forms for the reported amounts instead of C Forms.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the respondents to release the necessary F Forms to facilitate the petitioner's correction, subject to the outcome of an ongoing Supreme Court case.

Issues: The main questions addressed were the entitlement to rectify tax returns and the process for issuing the correct Forms.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that petitioners must be permitted to correct their tax filings through the issuance of correct Forms as per established judicial precedent.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

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. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes.

2.1. The above-referenced order has been passed by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr Justice S. Ravindra Bhat [as he then was]. The following operative directions were issued via order dated 10.09.2018:

    "In the light of the submissions made following the final judgment of this court of 11.04.2017 in W.P. (C) 2633/2017 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner, VAT Delhi), the petitioners are entitled to a direction of similar kind. The respondent shall release the C-Forms to enable the appropriate correction to be made for the relevant quarters. However, these directions shall remain suspended till the time SLP (C) 13928/2018 is pending and shall be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in that case.

    The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."

3. In view of the order passed in Allied Automation Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the respondents are directed to release "F" Forms to enable appropriate corrections to be made for the concerned period.

3.1. It is made clear that this direction will remain suspended, till a decision is rendered in SLP(C.) No.13928/2018, and will be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in that case.

4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top