Delhi High Court
Amorous Communications vs Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax & ... on 19 November, 2020
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula
$~Suppl.-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 8893/2020 & CM APPLs.28648-28649/2020
AMOROUS COMMUNICATIONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate
with Mr. Ramanand Roy & D.K.
Sharma, Advocates
versus
COMMISSIONER OF GOODS
AND SERVICES TAX & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate, ASC for
GNCTD.
% Date of Decision: 19th November, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ has been filed challenging the writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 issued under Section 137 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and consequential order.
3. Petitioner also prays for quashing of the impugned notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'DVAT Act') and the impugned notice of default assessment of penalty under Section 33 of the DVAT Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 1 of 4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that perusal of the impugned notice shows that the impugned demand has been created merely on the ground that respondent No. 2 has doubted the claims of selling dealers from whom the petitioner had made purchases whereas the petitioner had made purchases from the registered dealers in accordance with the provisions of the DVAT Act on the basis of "tax invoices". In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in On Quest Merchandising India Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 6093/2017.
5. On the last date of hearing, we had asked the petitioner as to why the petitioner had not challenged the assessment orders and notices of default on the basis of which the impugned Writ of demand had been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that assessment orders were unsigned and had been passed without any notice to the petitioner.
6. Consequently, on the last date of hearing, this Court had asked the learned counsel for respondent as to whether the assessment orders had been uploaded on the DVAT portal in Dealer login and if uploaded to provide the date of uploading of orders on the DVAT portal. Learned counsel for respondent has now filed the following chart:-
Assessment date of Tax period Assessment Total order no order Year Amount Due Tax and Interest 150011166413 15.05.2014 First Quarter- 2012-2013 62029.43 2012 150011241663 15.05.2014 Second Quarter- 2012-2013 82491.67 2012 150082912552 13.03.2019 Second Quarter- 2014-2015 9134.82 2014 WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 2 of 4 150082912563 13.03.2019 Third Quarter- 2014-2015 5094.35 2014 150082706695 30.11.2018 First Quarter- 2014-2015 8415.82 2014 150083259798 14.03.2020 First Quarter- 2015-2016 47705.45 2015 150083259828 14.03.2020 Second Quarter- 2015-2016 21986.11 2015 150083259873 14.03.2020 Third Quarter- 2015-2016 8673.72 2015 150083259914 14.03.2020 Fourth Quarter- 2015-2016 28103.58 2015 150082730774 27.12.2018 Second Quarter- 2015-2016 776.00 2015 150083118342 13.08.2019 Fourth Quarter- 2015-2016 71376.68 2015 150083127974 04.09.2019 Second Quarter- 2016-2017 67630.79 2016 250012062836 07.06.2014 First Quarter- 2012-2013 49500.06 2012 250012101289 07.06.2014 Second Quarter- 2012-2013 67876.3 2012
7. Learned counsel for respondent states that as per the database, all the demands and penalties mentioned are available on the dealer login and also available on ward incharge login and the uploading date be taken as order generated date. He clarifies that the order date mentioned in the table are the assessment order date and the same are reflected in the dealer login and ward login.
8. Since the demands and penalties are the basis on which the impugned writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 has been issued, this Court is of the view that petitioner must challenge the demands and penalties in WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 3 of 4 accordance with the statutory mechanism.
9. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner shall withdraw the present writ petition and challenge the demands and penalties in accordance with the DVAT Act. The statement made by Mr. Rajesh Mahna is accepted by this Court and the petitioner is held bound by the same. To facilitate the filing of the said proceedings, the writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 is stayed for a period of six weeks. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition and pending applications stand disposed of.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2020 TS WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 4 of 4