Bajaj Overseas Impex Vs Special Commissioner-I & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging orders of the Special Commissioner directing the petitioners to make pre-deposits as a condition for hearing objections under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act). The impugned orders required the petitioners to deposit specified amounts by invoking the third proviso to Section 74(1), which was introduced with effect from 01.10.2011. In one petition, relating to the financial year 2010-11, the petitioner was directed to deposit ₹25 lakh, while in the other, relating to 2008-09, the petitioner was directed to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax and interest and 10% of the penalty before its objections could be heard.
The petitioners contended that the third proviso to Section 74(1) was not part of the statute during the relevant assessment years. They argued that the right to file objections was a substantive right comparable to the right of appeal and that, when the returns were filed, no statutory requirement existed for making a pre-deposit before objections could be entertained. They submitted that the amendment introducing the third proviso was neither expressly nor impliedly retrospective and, therefore, could not affect vested rights. Reliance was placed on decisions including Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., Khazan Chand Nathi Ram, Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel, and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Cameo Exports.
