Case Law Details
HDFC Bank Limited Vs Commissioner DVAT of Trade And Taxes & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Form ‘F’ was not issued in respect of inter-state stock transfers by assessee-bank due to default in paying Central Sales Tax and the order of Supreme Court restraining the respondents from taking any kind of coercive action against assessee for recovering the said demands could not ipso facto operate against the demand for the other financial years and on other issues.
Held: Assessee contended that as a part of its business operation, from April 2016 until June 2017, assessee moved “Bullion” stored in its branches located in the other states of India to its branch located in Delhi, to maintain a single reserve of Bullion instead of storing the same in a scattered manner in different branches. Assessee asserted that since the transactions did not involve sale of “Bullion” to a third party instead, it only involved the transfer of “Bullion” between the two branches of the assessee-Bank, therefore, assessee initiated the process of obtaining the “F‟ Forms for availing the benefit envisaged under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST Act‟). Assessee accessed the said online facility, uploaded the relevant documents and also mentioned the required details, however, the F Forms were not issued to assessee. On approaching assessee was advised to clear all the outstanding VAT demands alongwith the applicable interest and penalty. The said demand for the financial years 2005-06; 2006-07; and 2008-09 was pending challenge before the Supreme Court in form of Special Leave Petition(s). Assessee also made representation to the respondents, however, to no avail. It was held that the Order of the Supreme Court restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action for recovery of demand was confined only to the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2008-09 and that too, only on the issue of sale of repossessed motor vehicles by assessee. In prima facie opinion, the said Order could not ipso facto operate against the demand for the other financial years and on other issues. It could not therefore, at least be said that Rule 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules was ultra vires the CST Act. Thus, the relief claimed by assessee was in fact, tantamount to granting the final relief to assessee in the petition itself. Therefore, the same was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
