TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies time limits for VAT objections under Delhi law</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Behl Construction Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Aravali Aluminium Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Behl Construction Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Aravali Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. - [2009] 21 VST 261 (Del) Issues Involved:1. Whether the objection pending before the Commissioner shall be deemed to be allowed if the Commissioner has not exercised either of the options set out in section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 within the specified time.2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in providing a mandatory period of eight months for the Commissioner to dispose of the objection pending before him under section 74(7) of the DVAT Act, particularly when no such stipulation is provided by the statute.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deeming Provision for Pending Objections:The court examined whether an objection pending before the Commissioner could be deemed to be allowed if the Commissioner fails to act within the time specified in section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The court clarified that the mere passage of the applicable period does not automatically mean that the objections are deemed to have been accepted. The deeming fiction of sub-section (9) gets triggered only if a notice as stipulated in sub-section (8) is given and the period of fifteen days specified therein expires without any decision from the Commissioner. The court emphasized that sub-sections (8) and (9) must be read together, and the legal fiction created by the deeming provision in sub-section (9) can only be raised if the conditions precedent for its application are satisfied, i.e., a notice calling upon the Commissioner to decide within fifteen days is a must.2. Mandatory Period for Disposal of Objections:The court addressed whether the Tribunal was correct in fixing a mandatory period of eight months for the Commissioner to dispose of objections under section 74(7). The court held that the Tribunal erred in law by imposing this mandatory period, as no such stipulation is provided by the statute. The court explained that section 74(7) of the said Act prescribes specific time-limits for different scenarios, but these are directory and not mandatory. The applicable periods for deciding objections are three months, five months, six months, or eight months, depending on whether extensions are sought by the Commissioner or the objector. However, if the applicable time-limit expires and no order is passed, the objector must issue a notice under section 74(8) requiring the Commissioner to make a decision within fifteen days. Only if this notice is issued and no decision is made within the stipulated period of fifteen days, the objections would be deemed to have been accepted.Conclusion:The court concluded that an objection pending before the Commissioner cannot be deemed to have been accepted simply because the time specified in section 74(7) has expired without the Commissioner exercising either of the options set out in section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b). The deeming provision of section 74(9) would get triggered only if the conditions precedent provided under section 74(8) are satisfied. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision to impose an eight-month mandatory period for the Commissioner to dispose of objections was incorrect, as no such stipulation exists in the statute. Both questions of law were decided in favor of the Revenue/appellant and against the respondents. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside to the extent indicated. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 