Case Law Details
Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
A perusal of the paper books reveals that there is no dispute that the petitioners deposited the taxes, however, the mistake which the petitioners have committed is that they had deposited the taxes under the minor head ‘200’ instead of ‘400’.
In the opinion of this Court, as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given the credit for the challans paid in Form 3 under the said Act. The order/communication dated 7th April, 2022 rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV Act on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head ‘200’ instead of ‘400’ is unfair, illegal and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act, 2020.
If the only impediment in the way of granting relief sought by the petitioner is the software, the same ought to be suitably modified to accept the applications of the petitioners. One of us, (Manmohan, J) in Shalu Nigam & Anr. Vs. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3023 has held, “In any case, technology is intended to ease and facilitate transactions and cannot be the basis for creating and defeating anybody’s legal rights”. After all, the software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations and legal rights of the tax payers and not that the tax payers’ legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
