Case Law Details
HDFC Bank Limited Vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax (Delhi High Court)
HC held that Regard must be had to the fact that the non-payment of tax on the sale of repossessed vehicles is not alleged even by the respondents as being an outcome of “concealment, omission or a failure to disclose all material particulars”. The appellant chose not to deposit any tax in respect of the subject transactions proceeding on the assertion that the revenues obtained therefrom were not exigible to tax under the provisions of the That uncertainty came to be accorded a degree of finality only once the judgment came to be pronounced by the Court in Citi Bank. The imposition of penalty therefore, would be rendered unsustainable additionally on this score.
In fact, the invocation of the Proviso placed in Section 34(1) of DVAT Act lends further credence to our conclusion that the order of the Court dated 26 September 2016 cannot possibly be interpreted as restricting the scope of inquiry to the question of proportionality alone. Accepting such a contention as advanced by the respondents would compel us to construe the aforesaid decision as intending to empower the respondents to levy a penalty even though the same may not find sanction under the provisions of the Act. This too leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the order of 26 September 2016 did not detract from the right of the appellant to question the very basis for invocation of the penalty provisions.
HC , accordingly, allow the instant appeal and answer the question of law as framed in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the Department. We also consequently set aside the impugned orders levying penalty upon the appellant and pertaining to FY 2005-06 and 2008-09.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
