Combined Traders v. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1080/2018 & CM APPL. 4513/2018 (for stay) COMBINED TRADERS ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajesh Jain and Mr. Virag Tiwari, Advocates.

versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Satyakam, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Amit Sharma, LA, DTT, GNCTD

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 09.07.2018 This petition claims the refund of VAT amount deposited for the first quarter of 2017-18 and urges that the previous writ petition, disposed of by this Court, i.e. W.P.(C) No.8283/2017, has not been followed in its letter and spirit. It is urged that the concerned Authority, which decided the claim in the present case, in fact was not appropriate and that a Committee of Commissioners ought to have decided it, given the prevailing delegation notification. The Revenue urges that a companion writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.1081/2018, which had impugned the VATO‟s order dated 08.01.2018 issuing the assessment and generating a demand was challenged but disposed of relegating the petitioner to the remedy of

further appeal/redress to the Objection Hearing Authority („OHA‟). It is urged that the substratum of the present dispute is identical with that of W.P.(C) 1081/2018 as it relates to the same first quarter of 2017-18.

It is also submitted that a Committee comprising of Special Commissioners was appointed to decide the appeals against the orders made by the Committee in terms of the notification (which was subsequently rescinded and fresh delegation notification was issued on 16.02.2018 and on 11.04.2018).

This Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner‟s primary argument is that the Committee ought to have decided the refund application, the events which transpired, i.e. the generation of a demand through an appeal, prior order of 08.01.2018 in one sense overboard the entire matter. The refund claimed therefore was decided in a consequential manner. Apparently, while doing so, the prevailing notification with respect to the delegation of powers was lost sight of. The petitioner‟s appeal against the assessment and the generation of demand, which was relegated to the OHA, has since been decided. In these circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to appeal to the concerned Authority, now designated for the purpose as the Special Commissioner, within three weeks and urge all contentions, including with respect to the lack of jurisdiction of the VATO to decide the refund application in the first place and the said

Special Commissioner will decide the appeal on merits uninfluenced by the issue of limitation.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with the pending application(s).

Copy of order be given dasti to the parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J JULY 09, 2018 nn