Case Law Details
Commissioner of Trade and Taxes Delhi Vs DCW Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case involving sales tax demand linked to the use of invalid ST-1 Forms. This case pits the Revenue against DCW Limited, with crucial implications for both parties.
The case revolves around a sales tax demand raised against DCW Limited for the use of allegedly invalid ST-1 Forms. While the Revenue argues that DCW Limited is liable for the sales tax demand, DCW Limited, represented by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, counters that the forms in question were provided by purchasing dealers. DCW Limited asserts that it merely presented these forms to the taxing authorities and had no direct involvement in their issuance.
Crucially, DCW Limited’s defense rests on the fact that the underlying transactions are not in dispute. Both sides agree on the authenticity of the transactions, leading the High Court to rule in favor of DCW Limited by quashing the sales tax demand.
The Supreme Court has granted leave for the case, signifying its importance. Both parties are represented by competent legal teams, with Ms. Monica Benjamin representing the Revenue and Ms. Apeksha Mehta representing another assessee in a related matter.
The central issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court is whether DCW Limited can be held liable for the sales tax demand arising from the use of allegedly invalid ST-1 Forms, considering that it was not directly responsible for their issuance.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. Heard Ms. Monica Benjamin, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. The counsel would point out that the matter pertains to sales tax demand for use of invalid ST-1 Forms, by he selling dealer.
3. However Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee and Ms. Apeksha Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the other assessee in the connected matter, would point out that those ST-1 Forms were furnished by the purchasing dealer(s) and the selling dealer(s) had simply presented them to the taxing authorities. It is also pointed out that insofar as the transaction is concerned, the same is not disbelieved and therefore the High Court has leaned towards the assessees and against the Revenue, by quashing the sales tax demand.
4. Leave granted. Hearing be expedited.
Author Bio
