TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the return filed by the petitioner for the fourth quarter 2015-16 shall stand rectified accordingly - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 7459/2021 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Advocate with Mr. Saroj Singh and Mr. Rajiv Deora, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Manas Bhatnagar, Advocate. JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondent to rectify the Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) return for column 11 and issue the correct Form F to the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Taxes in WP(C) 4816/2017 decided on 31st July, 2017. 9. Issue notice. Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the mistake in the present instance is by the petitioner and not by the respondents. He states that instead of filing an application for rectification before the VATO, the petitioner ought to have revised the return under Section 28 of the said Act. 11. This Court is of the view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in H.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (supra) had in similar facts permitted the petitioner to rectify its return. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mistake by the Petitioner and not of the DTT. Instead of filing an application for rectification before the VATO, the Petitioner ought to have revised the return under Section 28 of the Act. 5. The Court is of the view that the mistake explained by the Petitioner appears to be bona fide. Although it was open to the Petitioner to have revised the return, admittedly, the period of revising the return has already expired. With the Petitioner not asking for any extraordinary benefit but only what it is entitled to in accordance with law, the Court is of the view, the Petitioner should be permitted to rectify its return, even at this stage and its clarification that aforementioned figures of purchases made from Aman Marketing for the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
