Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRestoration and validation of cancelled Statutory Form C issued to the Petitioner - validity of Statutory Form 9C - denial of benefit of the said C-forms to the petitioner on the ground that the said forms were cancelled by the Delhi VAT Authorities. HELD THAT:- 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. In JAIN MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. [2016 (6) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT] 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. It is not disputed that the respondents had not appealed the decision in the case of Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. 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 appealpreferred against the decision of this court in M/S JAI GOPAL INTERNATIONAL IMPEX PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. [2018 (7) TMI 1861 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. 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 - Petition allowed.
|