Case Law Details
Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Delhi High Court sets aside ex-parte assessment order and directed petitioners to place on record available documents to stake claim that Inter-state sales/ branch transfers have taken place.
The petitioner is a trader in home appliances under brand name “CROMA”. Refund was due to it for the quarter in 2013-2014. The assessing officer, however, to stall refund passed best judgment orders on the ground that details of inter-state sales were not provided. The demand of over Rs.152 crores were confirmed. Hence, petitioner approached the High court.
The several legal arguments were raised by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that original C- forms were provided already and only copies are available now. The petitioner contended that “review” was not permissible in the garb of assessment under section 58 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act. The revenue conceded that the orders be set aside and matter be reheard by the assessing officer in view of ex-parts assessment order.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the assessment orders and directed the petitioner to place documents before the concerned officer to stake claim that inter-state sales/ branch transfers have taken place. Disposes off petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.01.2020 (CST Order 1st Quarter 2013-14) along with penalty order dated 03.02.2020, order dated 31.01.2020 (CST Order 2nd Quarter 2013-14) along with penalty order dated 03.02.2020, order dated 31.01.2020 (VAT Order 1st Quarter 2013-14) along with penalty order dated 03.02.2020, order dated 31.01.2020 (VAT Order 2 nd Quarter 2013-14), and order dated 31.01.2020 (VAT Order 4th Quarter 2013-14) along with penalty order dated 03.02.2020.
2. The central factual issue, which emerges on a perusal of the record and the aforementioned orders dated 31.01.2020, is whether or not the petitioner entered into interstate sales in the subject period.
3. Although there are several legal submissions that have been raised in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner in support of the challenge made to the impugned orders referred to above, counsel for the parties are agreed, that this writ petition can be disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The impugned orders shall stand set aside.
(ii) The petitioner will attempt to place necessary documents before the concerned officer, to reestablish the fact that interstate sales/branch transfers have indeed taken place.
(iii) The petitioner will produce inter alia the following documents: Stock Register for FY 2013-2014, audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2014, DVAT31 Form for FY 2013-2014, C and F Forms in original, to the extent available, and copies of bank statements showing transactions and relevant extracts from party ledger.
(iv) Besides this, the petitioner will also attempt to produce purchase/tax invoices–original local purchase invoices of 2nd/3rd and 4th Quarter and goods receipts to substantiate the movement of goods along with copies of RCs of purchasing dealer.
4. The intent, with which reference is made to the material that the petitioner needs to produce, is to enable the petitioner to establish its claim, that the subject interstate sale transactions took place, and thus assist the assessing officer to reach a conclusion, as to whether or not the said assertion is factually correct.
5. The assessing officer will permit the petitioner to place on record, all such evidentiary material, which will enable it to establish its stand.
5.1 Illustratively, the petitioner can, if deemed necessary, also place affidavits of the transporters and the recipients of the subject goods.
5.2 The assessing officer would be free to summon the affiants, if such affidavits are placed on record.
6. The assessing officer will complete this exercise, within the next eight weeks.
7. For this purpose, the petitioner’s authorized representative will appear before the assessing officer on 11.11.2022, at 12:00 PM.
8. It is made clear, that in case the determination made by the assessing officer is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the petitioner will be entitled to assail the same, in accordance with the law.
9. We may also indicate, that the aforesaid directions will extend the limitation period, as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the DVAT Act, 2004.
10. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. Pending application, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
