Case Law Details
Louis Dreyfus Company India PVT. LTD. Vs Commissioner Trade And Tax Department & ORS. (Delhi High Court)
In Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 1358/2016, decided on 06.2016 this court had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions involving the similar issue by following the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra).
This Court is informed that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the respondents in respect of some of those decisions; the lead matter being the SLP arising from the decision in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 7563/2018, decided on 23.07.2018.
It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). The said decision is binding on this Court and thus, the benefit of the C-Forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner.
Insofar as the remaining 9 C-forms are concerned, it is conceded that the said forms had not been cancelled. The counter affidavit is silent as to the reasons for denying the benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner.
A plain reading of the counter affidavit indicates that it proceeds on the basis that the matter is sub judice in the appeal preferred against the decision of this court in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra).
In view of the above, we find that there is no reason for denying the benefit of C-forms to the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had not supplied the goods in question.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
“a) Issue writ of Mandamus and Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent No.1 to restore and validate the 4 cancelled Statutory Form C issued to the Petitioner as stated in para 14.
b) Direct Respondent No.1 to declare all the other 9 Statutory Form C (as stated in para 14) issued tothe petitioner as Valid and the same to be communicated to Gujarat VAT department.
c) Issue contempt notice against the R1 towards disobeying the law laid down in P.(C) 1358/2016 Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner Value Added Tax and cancelling the 4 C forms as stated in para 14.
d) To communicate the validity of the 9 C forms (as stated in para 14) which are still valid and not cancelled, to the Gujarat VAT department/R2.
4. The controversy in the present petition relates to transactions entered into in the year 2015-16, whereby the petitioner had supplied goods to certain dealers in Delhi, who were at the material time, registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter ‘CST Act’). The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the CST Act as well as Gujrat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the State of Gujarat and had supplied goods (edible oil) at a concessional rate of sales tax at the rate of 2% against C-forms.
5. Notwithstanding that the supplies were made against C-forms issued at the material time, the Gujarat VAT Department has denied the benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner on the ground that the said forms were cancelled by the Delhi VAT Authorities.
6. The petitioner had made a representation to the Gujarat VAT Authorities and sought clarification in respect of the C-forms in question (13 in number). Admittedly, 13 C-forms in question have not been cancelled; only four out of the same have been cancelled, albeit
7. The respondent states that the registration of the dealers who had issued the remaining nine C-forms have been cancelled.
8. It is relevant to state that the respondent has not questioned the petitioner’s claim that it is a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pvt. Ltd, a reputed company dealing in agri-based commodities, and is engaged in processing of edible oil and coffee. The petitioner has offices and operations in twenty-one States.
9. In Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 1358/2016, decided on 06.2016 this court had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions involving the similar issue by following the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra).
10. This Court is informed that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the respondents in respect of some of those decisions; the lead matter being the SLP arising from the decision in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 7563/2018, decided on 23.07.2018.
11. It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). The said decision is binding on this Court and thus, the benefit of the C-Forms cancelled retrospectively cannot be denied to the petitioner.
12. Insofar as the remaining 9 C-forms are concerned, it is conceded that the said forms had not been cancelled. The counter affidavit is silent as to the reasons for denying the benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner.
13. A plain reading of the counter affidavit indicates that it proceeds on the basis that the matter is sub judice in the appeal preferred against the decision of this court in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra).
14. In view of the above, we find that there is no reason for denying the benefit of C-forms to the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had not supplied the goods in question.
15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
16. Although the petitioner has also prayed that action for contempt be issued against the respondents, this Court does not consider it apposite to initiate any such action. The prayer in this regard is
17. The concerned authorities are directed to ensure that the benefit of the C-forms in question (13 in number) is duly available to the petitioner.
18. It is clarified that this would not preclude the respondents from pursuing its investigation against the purchasing dealers who were registered in Delhi and take steps for recovery of any tax that may otherwise be found due from the said dealers, in accordance with law.
