Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (1) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ply to any other dealer or entity, and do not treat state instrumentalities differently. The petitioner cannot seek a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to issue the C Form for the Financial Year 2012-13 after over four years, when the transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.5 were not disclosed in the return filed by respondent No.5, and no rectification of the return was sought to be made within the period of limitation. The respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to release C Forms to respondent No.5 with respect to purchases made by respondent No.5 from petitioner No.1 during the Financial Year 2012-13 - This direction shall, however, remain suspended till the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, are decided and this direction shall abide by the decision that the Supreme Court renders - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 3024/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2020 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND MR. SANJEEV NARULA JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa and Mr. Sachin Kaushal, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC, GNCTD for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ately by the Employer subject to furnishing of documentary proof. The bidder shall include Service tax and surcharge/cess etc, on it as applicable in their quoted bid price and employer would not bear any additional liability on this account. Employer shall however deduct such tax at sources as per the rules and issue necessary Certificate to the contractor. 14.6 In case of local supplies, Excise duty, sales tax (but not surcharge in lieu of sales-tax) local taxes and other levies solely in respect of the transaction between the Employer and the Contractor under the Contract, if any, shall not be included in the bid price, but those shall be indicated separately wherever applicable. These amounts will be payable (along with subsequent variation if any), by the Employer on the supplies made by the Contractor but limited to the tax liability on the transaction between the Employer and the Contractor. Employer shall, however, issue requisite sales tax, declaration forms. 4. The works under the contract were completed and completion certificates were issued by respondent No.5 to the petitioner on 05.04.2016 in respect of the contract dated 28.11.2011 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty imposed by the Tax authorities, vendors will claim the penalty amount including interest from DTL for Settlement of their accounts. The above mentioned C Forms were not issued due to non-inclusion in C Form Return for the respective Financial Year s inadvertently. In this regard, M/s EMCO Ltd. has served a legal notice for the same, which create panic situation for DTL. An assessment order for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 has also been passed by Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (E618) large tax payers unit - II, Mumbai with imposing of penalty and interest (copy of the same is enclosed) in the case of M/s CGL. In view of above you are therefore, requested to arrange issuance of pending C Forms for the above said period to a void any inconvenience and litigations by vendors against DTIN AT Deptt. This may be treated as most urgent, please. (emphasis supplied) 7. This communication also shows that respondent No. 5 stated that it was an undertaking of the GNCTD and the penalty, if any, imposed by the tax authorities on the vendors i.e. the petitioner, would ultimately fall on respondent No.5. Respondent No. 5 admitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to the CST Act also. The respondents submit that, thus, the statutory period of one year under Section 28 of the DVAT Act shall also apply to the returns filed under the CST Act. 11. The respondents submit that respondent No. 5 cannot seek rectification or revision of its returns for the year 2012-13 at this belated stage in the light of the Section 28 of the DVAT Act. The communication dated 23.02.2018 was issued by respondent No. 5 after a lapse of a period of four years. The respondents also submit that the decision of this Court in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT T Anr., W.P. (C.) No. 8272/2015 is under challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4573/2017. The Supreme Court has granted leave in the said matter vide order dated 27.03.2017. The respondents also point out that this Court rendered decisions in several similar cases, including W.P. (C.) No. 2633/2017, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT decided on 11.04.2017, which have been appealed against in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the judgment of this Court. The relevant orders passed by this Court and the Su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This is for the reason that respondent No.5 though an undertaking of the GNCTD, is an assessee under the law and is bound by the same discipline of law as any other entity would be, whether or not, the same is an instrumentality of the State. The provisions of the DVAT Act and the CST Act apply to respondent No.5 with the same force, as they would apply to any other dealer or entity, and do not treat state instrumentalities differently. 16. We can appreciate the grievance of the petitioner that it is suffering on account of respondent No.5 not disclosing the relevant sale transactions in their returns; not carrying out correction/ rectification in terms of Section 28 of the DVAT Act within one year, and; not applying for C Forms within time. For the said omission, the petitioner may have a cause of action against respondent No.5. However, in our view, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to issue the C Form for the Financial Year 2012-13 after over four years, when the transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.5 were not disclosed in the return filed by respondent No.5, and no rectification of the return was sought to be made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates