Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Arise India Limited and others Vs. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi and others (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 2106/2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 26.10.2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi and others Vs. Arise India Limited and others [TS-2-SC-2018-VAT], has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Arise India Limited and others Vs. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi and others [TS-314-HC-2017(Del)-VAT] (“Arise India case”). The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi VAT Act to the extent it disallows Input tax credit (ITC) to purchaser due to default of selling dealer in depositing tax, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

We are sharing with you details of this important judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Arise India case for your easy digests:

Issue:

1. Whether treating both the ‘guilty purchasers’ and the ‘innocent purchasers’ at par under Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (“the DVAT Act”) is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether input tax credit (“ITC”) can be denied to a bona fide purchaser under Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act because of default of the selling dealer over whom such purchasing dealer has no control?

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

4 Comments

  1. SACHIN KHERADA says:

    Dear Sir,
    In the light of above matter by Dehli Highcourt & as well as Honb. Suprime court of India.
    you are requested to kindly provide us more detail in this metter of obove.

  2. sunil b mundada says:

    sir as this is sup-rim court judgment it is also applicable to m vat act also in our case itc is disalloud in 2007-08 by department by canceling retrospective dealer tin cancelled

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031