Delhi High Court - Orders
Scj Plastics Limited vs Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service ... on 27 February, 2023
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2433/2023
SCJ PLASTICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Mahna, Ms Sonia
Sharma and Mr Mayank Kouts,
Advocates.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS
AND SERVICE TAX ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajeev Aggarwal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 27.02.2023 CM APPL. 9336/2023
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2433/2023
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to impugn the orders dated 02.02.2023 and 01.10.2021 passed by the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal').
4. By the impugned order dated 02.02.2023, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application to review the order dated 01.10.2021 by accepting additional material being an affidavit enclosing therewith confirmations from the purchaser that certain goods sold by the petitioner, were inter-State sales and had been received by them outside the State.
5. The Tribunal has rejected the said application on the ground that the material now sought to be produced was not produced at any stage in the proceedings and production of such documents at such a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:02.03.2023 belated stage, after the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed, would not be apposite. We find no infirmity with the said decision.
6. By the impugned order dated 01.10.2021, the Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's appeals (eight in number) against an order of the Objection Hearing Authority upholding the orders of the Adjudicating Authority, rejecting certain sales claimed to have been effected in the year 2013-14, as sales in the course of inter-State trade and levying penalties.
7. It is seen that the petitioner had filed appeals in this court impugning the orders dated 01.10.2021 (VAT Appeal No.9/2021 and VAT Appeal No.10/2021). However, the said appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 15.09.2022.
8. Mr Mahna states that he had withdrawn the said appeals in order to prefer a review petition.
9. Mr Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal and the correct remedy for the petitioner is to file fresh appeals or seek restoration of the appeals that were dismissed as withdrawn.
10. We find merit in the said contention.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to file an appeal(s) against the impugned order dated 01.10.2021.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 27, 2023 RK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:02.03.2023