Delhi High Court - Orders
H.G. International vs The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, ... on 6 November, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~5 to 8 & 10,11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ST.APPL. 63/2014
H.G. INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Mr. Arif
Ahmed Khan, Ms. Gauri
Grover and Mr. Shubham
Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
Advs.
6
+ VAT APPEAL 30/2022
M/S CARDIO FITNESS INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
A.R. TANNU ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar, Mr. Surinder
Kumar and Mr. A. Babbar,
Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
Advs.
7
+ VAT APPEAL 36/2022
M/S SUPER STATIONERS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Sumit
K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/11/2023 at 21:28:09
and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
Advs.
8
+ VAT APPEAL 39/2022
MEGHAAARIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,
FORMERLY RITZY INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Ms.
Deeksha Gupta, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
Advs.
10
+ VAT APPEAL 9/2023
INDUS VALLEY TRADING P LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Ms.
Deeksha Gupta, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/11/2023 at 21:28:09
Advs.
11
+ VAT APPEAL 13/2023
UNIQUE COLLECTION INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
along with Mr. Prateek
Bhadwar, Ms. Shaguftha
Hameed and Mr. Aadish Jain,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 06.11.2023 CM APPL. 57280/2023(Waiver of Cost) in ST.APPL. 63/2014
1. This application has been moved before the Court to waive costs, which were imposed in terms of the order dated 21 September 2023. We note that the aforesaid prayer is based principally on the following averments which are made in the application: -
"3. That it is apposite to state that on the said date of hearing, that is, 20.09.2023, during the course of arguments before this Hon‟ble Court, the Petitioner made certain submissions in the context on DVAT-50 and also filed certain documents to prove that the assessment officer was not a ward officer, and the Government Counsel, representing the Applicant/Respondent, made the best legal assessment at the time and, accordingly, submitted that he would require some time to file certain additional material in order to counter to the submissions made and documents produced by the Petitioner.
4. That it is condign to note that although there were no instructions, either verbal or written, given to Government Counsel to file any additional material before this Hon‟ble Court, however, the said submission seeking time for placing additional material This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/11/2023 at 21:28:09 was deemed as essential and imperative so as to enable the Government Counsel to give an adept response to the submissions being made by the Petitioner and documents produced.
5. That it needs to be brought to the notice of this Hon‟ble Court that despite all genuine efforts, no additional material could be procured and the Applicant/Respondent does not wish to file any additional material and had the Government Counsel sought instructions before seeking time for placing additional material before this Court, the Applicant/Respondent would have instructed that no such material is available and there would be no necessity for seeking any additional time for the same, however, since said instructions could not be obtained on such short notice, the Government Counsel, acting in pursuance of the best interests of the Revenue, made a judgment call for seeking time for pacing additional material on record before this Hon‟ble Court.
6. That it is submitted with utmost humility and veneration, that since no such material is available to be placed and produced before this Hon‟ble Court, the directions imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on account of granting time for placing such additional material have been rendered ineffective and the Applicant/Respondent would be put to great prejudice if it was required to pay such a huge amount, as costs, despite no fault or error on its part."
2. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant fairly states that the assertions made in paragraph 3, and which appear to suggest that certain documents were filed for the first time during the course of hearing is factually incorrect and therefore is not sought to be relied upon. While the additional material and which essentially refers to documents and Right to Information [„RTI‟] responses have been placed on the record, it is submitted that in the absence of any further material being in possession of the respondents, the batch itself may be heard on merits. It is submitted that insofar as costs are concerned, they were imposed in light of the fact that learned counsel at that stage did not have appropriate instructions.
3. In view of the above, we waive the costs of ₹30,000/- as imposed in terms of the order of 21 September 2023.
4. The application shall stand disposed of.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/11/2023 at 21:28:09 ST.APPL. 63/2014; VAT APPEAL 30/2022 & CM APPL. 38967/2022 (Interim Relief); VAT APPEAL 36/2022; VAT APPEAL 39/2022; VAT APPEAL 9/2023 & CM APPL.
25345/2023 (130 Days Delay) and VAT APPEAL 13/2023
5. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that notwithstanding the order of 31 October 2005 using the expression "within their respective jurisdiction", all officers who were appointed in terms of Section 66(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 would stand enabled to exercise the powers of assessment/reassessment as contemplated therein and irrespective of the territory-wise distribution that may have been administratively made.
6. In order to make good the aforesaid submission, Mr. Aggarwal seeks time to place on the record additional material.
7. Let this batch be called again on 30.11.2023 as part heard.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2023 Neha/RW This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/11/2023 at 21:28:09