Commissioner DVAT directed to issue time barred F-Forms when it was not disputed that the transactions claimed were not genuine – High Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2521 (2018) 09 HC
Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes (2016) 89 VST 312(Delhi).
The Petitioner company had filed a writ petition, seeking a direction to quash the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes (DVAT Authority). A further direction was sought to to grant permission for the revision of returns for the specified tax period.
The case of the Petitioner assessee was that it had made genuine inter-state inward branch transfers for the relevant tax period against F-Form which were incorrectly reflected in Annexure 2A filed online with the return in Column F11.1.3 of Form DVAT 16.
Section 28 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act) prescribes a time limit for furnishing revised returns i.e. one year from the date end of the Financial Year to which the transactions pertain. The procedure for obtaining F-Forms under the DVAT Act, was through a website which was automated. As per the software/website, if the inward transfers details are missing in the Annexure 2A filed online, the corresponding F-Forms for the said inwards transfers could not be generated.
On facing the said problem in generating F-Forms, the petitioner approached the DVAT authorities to permit it to revise the returns and include the omitted transfers which could enable it to download the F-Forms.
However, after a long gap of approx one year, the petitioners request was rejected on the ground that the time period for filing the revised returns under Section 28 of the DVAT Act had elapsed. Hence the present writ.
The petitioner contended that the revision sought does not cause any prejudice to the revenue and that its inability to file the revised returns in time was not on account of any deliberate omission but it was because of the very nature of the online facility portal, which automatically reflects in Form F, the inaccurate particulars provided in the corresponding Annexure to the DVAT Forms.
It was submitted that the default or omission in not providing the correct or accurate details was not so glaring or absolute that it cannot be condoned in the exercise of discretionary powers to impose a penalty under Section 86(9)(c) of the DVAT Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the VAT Department was not per se contesting the genuineness of the transactions which the petitioner claimed to have actually entered into. What was set up as a bar to the relief is that the time period prescribed in Section 28 has elapsed.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that Section 86(9)(c) facially suggests that if some particulars which should have been disclosed in the return are not disclosed, the tax payer is liable by way of penalty Rs. 200 per day from the date falling the due date until the failure is rectified. Nevertheless it was not disputed that the transactions claimed were not genuine.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the petitioner was entitled to relief of the kind awarded by the Court in another case. Accordingly the Commissioner, VAT was directed to issue the concerned F-Forms within four weeks.
It was also directed that if an indemnity bond is required from the petitioner in this regard, a letter or communication should be addressed to the petitioner within two weeks. Subject to these, the F-Forms shall be released within the time as directed.
