Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, POONAM A.BAMBA
Sanjay Enterprises Through Sanjay Bansal (Proprietor) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Trade and Taxes – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in adjudication of objections (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. service of notice procedures under the act (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's view on procrastination by revenue (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. order for timely adjudication of objections (Para 9) |
| 5. imposition of costs on revenue for delay (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Issue notice.
1.1. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
2. With the consent of the counsel of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the objections filed in the matter to the notice of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [in short "the Act"], have not been adjudicated upon, up until now.
3.1. The petitioner, in this context, has drawn our attention to various communications sent to the respondents for adjudication of the objections preferred against the notice issued under Section 32 of the Act.
4. The record shows that notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 07.06.20
The court emphasized adherence to statutory timelines for adjudicating tax objections, underscoring that undue delays infringe on taxpayer rights and threaten the integrity of the tax system.
Timely adjudication of objections under tax law is mandatory; inaction constitutes a failure of duty, merits judicial intervention, and necessitates reforms for efficiency.
The court affirmed that taxpayers must exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements under the tax laws.
An opportunity to be heard should be afforded after the noticee has filed a reply, and the noticee should be permitted to place their stand on record before being afforded a hearing.
The assessing officer is bound to dispose of the objections filed by the noticee before proceeding with the assessment after issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The impugned order was barred by limitation in terms of Section 34 of the DVAT Act.
Failure to adhere to the directions in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit, which led to the quashing of the impugned notices and order.
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
