Delhi High Court - Orders
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 January, 2023
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1797/2021 & CM APPL. 5182/2021, 5183/2021,
5184/2021, 2062/2023
KAMA AYURVEDA PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Sandeep Chilana,
Mr. Prem Kandpal, Ms.
Anjali Jain, Mr. Abdullah
Tanveer, Mr. Ashok
Thakur & Ms. Jagariti
Rastogi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash (CGSC)
with Mr. Aman Rewaria &
Mr. Farman Ali, Advs. for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 17.01.2023
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning an order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the respondent No. 3, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Sabka Viswas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. The principal question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the tax dues prior to the cut off date had been quantified.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent has commenced the investigation alleging short payment of excise on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR W.P.(C) 1797/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:19.01.2023 12:09:01 account of certain activities which the respondent claimed were "deemed manufacturing".
4. The offices of the petitioner were searched on 20.09.2017. It is the petitioner's case that after discussion, the statement of its Warehouse Manager was recorded and he disclosed the liability for the period 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2017. The total liability according to the petitioner was worked out to ₹35,73,729.91. This included the liability pertaining to the three month period that fell beyond the period of five years from the cut off date (quantified ₹71,037.33).
5. The petitioner has pleaded that officers of the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner's finance team met multiple times for finalization of data and quantification of duty. It is also stated that on the suggestion of officials of the respondent No. 4, the petitioner agreed to pay the duty with the view to close the investigation. In fact, the petitioner had remitted an amount of ₹35,73,730/- for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2016 and by a letter dated 04.06.2019 requested for closure of the investigation.
6. Subsequently, by a communication dated 06.06.2019, the petitioner also forwarded the details of calculations and the payments made. Apparently, the respondent did not accept the said payment as it was made by the petitioner through its Coimbatore Office which was considered as a separate tax entity.
7. The respondent has simply denied some of the averments made in the petition. According to the respondent, there was no quantification of the tax liability.
8. In view of the above, this court considers apposite to direct that the necessary files be produced before the court on the next date of hearing.
Signature Not Verified 9. The concerned officer shall file an affidavit specifically Digitally Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR W.P.(C) 1797/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:19.01.2023 12:09:01responding in some detail to the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition.
10. List on 09.02.2023.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 17, 2023 "SK"
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMALDEEP KAUR W.P.(C) 1797/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:19.01.2023 12:09:01