Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this writ petition, a direction to quash the letter/order issued by the second respondent i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes (hereafter referred to as "DVAT Authority") is sought. A further direction to the respondents to grant permission for the revision of returns for the tax period 2012-13, is also claimed.

2. The petitioner states that it had made genuine inter-state inward branch transfers for the period 2012-13 against F-Form. These transfers amounted to `1.79 crores but were incorrectly reflected in Annexure 2A filed online with the return for June, 2012 and in Column F11.1.3 of Form DVAT

16. Section 28 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter as "DVAT Act") prescribes a time limit for furnishing revised returns i.e. one year from the date end of the Financial Year to which the transactions pertain. The procedure for obtaining F-Forms under the DVAT Act, is through a website which is automated. The details are in terms of Annexure 2A filed online. If inward transfers details are missing in the Annexure 2A filed online, the corresponding F-Forms for the said inwards transfers cannot be generated. Upon realizing this problem, the petitioner approached the respondent- DVAT authorities on 26.05.2016 to permit it to revise the returns and include the omitted transfers which could enable it to download the F-Forms. This was based on its understanding of the DVAT provisions which conferred the Assessing Officer with discretionary powers under Section 33 read with Section 86(9)(c) of the DVAT Act to impose penalty for failure to furnish the revised returns, by the due date.

3. Much later on 23.05.2017, the petitioners request was rejected on the ground that the time period for filing the revised returns under Section 28 of the DVAT Act had elapsed. The petitioner contends that the revision sought does not cause any prejudice to the revenue and that its inability to file the revised returns in time was not on account of any deliberate omission but it was because of the very nature of the online facility portal, which automatically reflects in Form F, the inaccurate particulars provided in the corresponding Annexure to the DVAT Forms. It is submitted that the default or omission in not providing the correct or accurate details is not so glaring or absolute that it cannot be condoned in the exercise of discretionary powers to impose a penalty under Section 86(9)(c) of the DVAT Act. The petitioner relies upon Section 28 and 86(9) for this purpose.

4. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court dated 01.02.2016 in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes (2016) 89 VST 312(Delhi). It is submitted that in that case undoubtedly, the Court was not dealing with C-Forms but, with respect to delay in the claiming of correct credit or concession and the inconsequential nature of the relief on the part of the department, it was held that the request for issuance of form had to be given.

5. The Government of NCT resists the petition stating that the decision in Ingram Micro Pvt. Ltd. (supra) pending consideration before the Supreme Court which has granted special leave to appeal against it. It is stated that Section 26 of the DVAT Act requires a dealer to pay tax under the Act and furnish returns in the prescribed form. Furthermore, Rule 5(iv) read with Rule 8(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, empowers the VAT Department to withhold issuance of F-Form to dealers in the case of concealment of purchase particulars or for furnishing inadequate particulars. It is stated that the right of a dealer in respect of purchased goods to not pay tax or without furnishing a prescribed declaration is not a vested right but is conditional upon fulfillment of all the requirements spelt out by the Statute. In this case, since the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions, the question of granting it the F-Forms, after a time prescribed for revision of the returns, cannot be granted.