Case Law Details
Sanjay Enterprises Through Sanjay Bansal (Proprietor) Vs Commissioner of Trade And Taxes And Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court directs timely adjudication of objections on default tax assessment. Create an online portal, warns against delay. Read the judgment details.
The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the objections filed in the matter to the notice of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 , have not been adjudicated upon, up until now.
HC held that Given the fact that the physical interaction often, for various reasons, is not possible with the Commissioner, the respondents / revenue are directed to create a portal/online mechanism for intimation of notices issued under sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, read with Rule 56 of Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Issue notice.
1.1 Mr Anuj Aggarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
2. With the consent of the counsel of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the objections filed in the matter to the notice of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty issued under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [in short “the Act”], have not been adjudicated upon, up until now.
3.1. The petitioner, in this context, has drawn our attention to various communications sent to the respondents for adjudication of the objections preferred against the notice issued under Section 32 of the Act.
4. The record shows that notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 07.06.2014, concerning the fourth quarter of the financial year (FY) 2012-13.
4.1. The aforesaid notice pegged the tax at Rs. 4,55,970/- and the penalty at Rs. 3,99,782/-.
4.2 The record also shows that the objections to the aforesaid notice were filed by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Act on 20.06.2014. The reminders qua disposal of the same appear to have been sent on 06.01.2021, 22.07.2021 and 10.02.2022. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had drawn attention of the respondents/revenue to sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 74 of the Act.
4.3. Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 74(9) of the Act.
4.4. Concededly, there has been no movement in the matter.
5. Mr Aggarwal does not dispute that the aforementioned provisions of the Act, set out strict timelines for disposal of the objections.
5.1. A perusal of sub-section (7) of Section 74 of the Act would show that the objections have to be decided, within three months, after the receipt of the objections.
5.2. As per sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Act, in case objections are not decided within three months, the assessee is entitled to serve upon the Commissioner a written notice requiring him to take a decision within the next fifteen days.
5.3. Sub-section (9) of Section 74 of the Act is indicative of the fact that, if at the end of fifteen days of such notice being served, a decision is not taken by the Commissioner, the objections filed are deemed as having been allowed.
6. It is the contention of Mr Aggarwal that the notice under sub-section (8) of Section 74 should be issued in the prescribed Form i.e., Form DVAT-41.
6.1. Mr Aggarwal says that in terms of Rule 56 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 [in short, “the 2005 Rules”], the said notice had to be personally served on the Commissioner.
6.2. It is Mr Aggarwal’s contention that there was neither any service effected on the Commissioner personally, nor was the signatory of the said notice an authorized representative of the assessee.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is complete sloth and procrastination on the part of the respondents/revenue.
7.1. The spirit of the law has, certainly, not been adhered to.
7.2. According to us, while Mr Aggarwal may have a talking point as to the mechanics set forth in the Act for service of notice under sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Act, there is certainly an unpardonable delay on the part of the respondents/revenue in dealing with the objections; eight years is too long a time for the respondents/revenue to not have moved the matter.
8. That being said, if we were to ascertain as to whether the concerned Commissioner had knowledge of the communications sent by the petitioner, it would only delay the matter further.
8.1. In our view, the respondents/revenue has to adapt itself to the times in which we live.
8.2. Given the fact that the physical interaction often, for various reasons, is not possible with the Commissioner, the respondents / revenue are directed to create a portal/online mechanism for intimation of notices issued under sub-section (8) of Section 74 of the Act, read with Rule 56 of the 2005 Rules.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents/revenue to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the judgment passed today.
9.1. For this purpose, the authorized representative [in short “AR”] of the petitioner will appear before the concerned Commissioner, on 13.05.2022 at 11:00 AM.
9.2. Needless to add, the Commissioner will pass a speaking order, after hearing the AR of the petitioner.
10. Having regard to the fact that there has been procrastination on part of the respondents/revenue, the respondents/revenue are mulct with costs of Rs. 7,500/-.
10.1. Costs will be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Fund, within the next two weeks.
10.2. Proof of costs will be filed by Mr Aggarwal.
11. For compliance of the aforesaid direction, list the matter before the concerned Registrar on 17.05.2022. In case there is no compliance, the concerned Registrar will place the matter before the Court.
