Delhi High Court
Woodpeckers India Pvt.Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Trade And ... on 2 August, 2021
$~S-84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7459/2021
WOODPECKERS INDIA PVT.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Advocate
with Mr. Saroj Singh and Mr. Rajiv
Deora, Advocate.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES,
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC, GNCTD
with Mr. Manas Bhatnagar, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 02nd August, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
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 Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is
registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and is in the business
of trading in plywood.
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:04.08.2021
22:17:44
4. He points out that the Petitioner transferred goods to Delhi from
outside and the said transaction does not fall under the definition of 'sale' as
per Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and hence no tax is liable
to be paid on such a transaction.
5. He states that the Petitioner filed the DVAT return for the fourth
quarter of 2015-16 and erroneously filed the return in the manner prescribed
in Column 11 clause 13 instead of column 11 clause 3.
6. He states that the Petitioner has applied for issuance of 'F' Forms in
the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority i.e. DAVT officer and
representations in this regard have been sent to the concerned authority.
7. He emphasises that despite multiple requests, the Respondents have
neither issued the Form 'F' to the Petitioner nor have responded to the
Petitioner's representations.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the error in the present
case is neither intentional nor deliberate and hence, there is no culpable
liability. He emphasises that there is no attempt by the Petitioner to evade
the tax liability or violate any of the provisions of the DVAT Act, 2004 and
the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In support of his submission, he refers the
judgment of this Court in H.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of
Trade 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.
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:04.08.2021
22:17:44
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
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"2. The Petitioner states that for the interstate purchases made
from M/s Aman Marketing, a registered dealer in Kanpur, the
Petitoiner was charged 2% tax under Section 8(1) of Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act'). As a purchaser of goods in the
course of interstate trade, the Petitioner was required to furnish
C-Forms on the basis of which Aman Marketing could take the
benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) and 8(4) of
the CST Act. Such C-Form could be obtained from the
jurisdictional VATO under Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax
(Delhi) Rules, 2005.
3. While filing the return for the first quarter of 2013-14, in
Form DVAT-16, although the Petitioner disclosed the details of
the purchases made from Aman Marketing, Kanpur, the
Petitioner appears to have inadvertently shown the aforesaid
purchases of Rs.1,79,44,191/- not in the field relevant for C-
Forms. Instead of indicating the above figure in coloumn R11.1
of the Form, the petitioner mistakenly showed the figure in
coloum R11.3, i.e., against inward stock transfer against F-
Form. The Petitoner, in all subsequent quarters, correctly
showed the purchases made from Aman Marketing against C-
Form. In support of this plea, the copy of the invoices issued by
Aman Marketing in relation to the purchases made in the first
quarter of 2013-14 have been enclosed by the Petitioner.
4. The stand of the Respondent-DTT, in its reply, is that this is 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
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:04.08.2021
22:17:44
Petitioner to have revised the return, admittedly, the period of
revising the return has already expired. With the Petitoner 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 first quarter of
2013-14 should be treated as purchases made against C-Forms
should be accepted.
6. The return filed by the Petitioner for the first quarter of 2013-
14 shall stand rectified accordingly. An appropriate order to
this effect be passed by the VATO on the strength of this order,
not later than two weks from today and the Petitioner shall not
later than one week thereafter be permitted to download the C-
Form pertaining to the above transactions."
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to rectify its
return even at this stage and its clarifications are directed to be accepted.
Consequently, the return filed by the petitioner for the fourth quarter 2015-
16 shall stand rectified accordingly. An appropriate order to this effect be
passed by the VATO on the strength of this order, not later than two weeks
from today and the petitioner shall not later than one week thereafter be
permitted to download the form 'F' pertaining to the above transactions.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 2, 2021
TS
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:04.08.2021
22:17:44
