Amorous Communications v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax & Anr
[Citation -2020-LL-1119-42]

Citation 2020-LL-1119-42
Appellant Name Amorous Communications
Respondent Name Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax & Anr.
Relevant Act Other Acts
Date of Order 19/11/2020
Assessment Year 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • penalty • stay of demand of tax

$ Suppl.-1 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 8893/2020 & CM APPLs.28648-28649/2020 AMOROUS COMMUNICATIONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate with Mr. Ramanand Roy & D.K. Sharma, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate, ASC for GNCTD. % Date of Decision: 19th November, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ has been filed challenging writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 issued under Section 137 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and consequential order. 3. Petitioner also prays for quashing of impugned notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as DVAT Act ) and impugned notice of default assessment of penalty under Section 33 of DVAT Act for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 1 of 4 4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that perusal of impugned notice shows that impugned demand has been created merely on ground that respondent No. 2 has doubted claims of selling dealers from whom petitioner had made purchases whereas petitioner had made purchases from registered dealers in accordance with provisions of DVAT Act on basis of "tax invoices". In support of his submission, he relies upon judgment of this Court in On Quest Merchandising India Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 6093/2017. 5. On last date of hearing, we had asked petitioner as to why petitioner had not challenged assessment orders and notices of default on basis of which impugned Writ of demand had been passed. Learned counsel for petitioner had stated that assessment orders were unsigned and had been passed without any notice to petitioner. 6. Consequently, on last date of hearing, this Court had asked learned counsel for respondent as to whether assessment orders had been uploaded on DVAT portal in Dealer login and if uploaded to provide date of uploading of orders on DVAT portal. Learned counsel for respondent has now filed following chart:- Assessment date of Tax period Assessment Total order no order Year Amount Due Tax and Interest 150011166413 15.05.2014 First Quarter- 2012-2013 62029.43 2012 150011241663 15.05.2014 Second Quarter- 2012-2013 82491.67 2012 150082912552 13.03.2019 Second Quarter- 2014-2015 9134.82 2014 WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 2 of 4 150082912563 13.03.2019 Third Quarter- 2014-2015 5094.35 2014 150082706695 30.11.2018 First Quarter- 2014-2015 8415.82 2014 150083259798 14.03.2020 First Quarter- 2015-2016 47705.45 2015 150083259828 14.03.2020 Second Quarter- 2015-2016 21986.11 2015 150083259873 14.03.2020 Third Quarter- 2015-2016 8673.72 2015 150083259914 14.03.2020 Fourth Quarter- 2015-2016 28103.58 2015 150082730774 27.12.2018 Second Quarter- 2015-2016 776.00 2015 150083118342 13.08.2019 Fourth Quarter- 2015-2016 71376.68 2015 150083127974 04.09.2019 Second Quarter- 2016-2017 67630.79 2016 250012062836 07.06.2014 First Quarter- 2012-2013 49500.06 2012 250012101289 07.06.2014 Second Quarter- 2012-2013 67876.3 2012 7. Learned counsel for respondent states that as per database, all demands and penalties mentioned are available on dealer login and also available on ward incharge login and uploading date be taken as order generated date. He clarifies that order date mentioned in table are assessment order date and same are reflected in dealer login and ward login. 8. Since demands and penalties are basis on which impugned writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 has been issued, this Court is of view that petitioner must challenge demands and penalties in WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 3 of 4 accordance with statutory mechanism. 9. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner shall withdraw present writ petition and challenge demands and penalties in accordance with DVAT Act. statement made by Mr. Rajesh Mahna is accepted by this Court and petitioner is held bound by same. To facilitate filing of said proceedings, writ of demand dated 29th September, 2020 is stayed for period of six weeks. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. With aforesaid directions, present writ petition and pending applications stand disposed of. 10. order be uploaded on website forthwith. Copy of order be also forwarded to learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2020 TS WP(C) 8893/2020 Page 4 of 4 Amorous Communications v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax & Anr
Report Error