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>Issuance of Form 'F' Ordered in Two Weeks Conditional on Surety Bond; Aligned with Legal Consistency Precedents.</h1> <h3>BRINDCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (STATE) & ANR.</h3> The HC directed the respondent to issue Form 'F' to the petitioner within two weeks, contingent upon the petitioner providing a surety bond to secure the ... Seeking issuance of Form ‘F’ for first and second quarter - rectification of erroneous particulars were referred in column R 11.3 of Form DVAT-16 - stock transfer - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of RITIKA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES & ANR. [2018 (11) TMI 1801 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the respondents are hereby directed to release the concerned F-forms within two weeks to enable appropriate correction in the relevant quarter. The petitioner shall however, furnish the surety bond to secure the amounts. The present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to release Form ‘F’ to the petitioner within two weeks to enable appropriate corrections to be carried out qua the relevant quarters. Issues:1. Non-issuance of Form 'F' by Delhi Value Added Tax Department for the first and second quarter of 2018-2019.2. Rejection of rectification request made by the petitioner.3. Dispute regarding erroneous particulars in column R 11.3 of Form DVAT-16.4. Similar issues addressed in previous judgments like E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT, Delhi & Anr.Analysis:1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the non-issuance of Form 'F' by the Delhi Value Added Tax Department for the first and second quarter of 2018-2019, filed a writ petition. The petitioner had previously moved for rectification, which was rejected by the department.2. The core issue revolved around the erroneous particulars referred in column R 11.3 of Form DVAT-16, leading to the non-issuance of Form 'F'. The petitioner sought relief similar to cases like E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT, Delhi & Anr., where directions were given for the issuance of relevant forms within a specified time frame.3. The High Court, considering the precedents set in cases like E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. and Allied Automation Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., directed the respondent to release Form 'F' to the petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to furnish a surety bond to secure the amounts in question, aligning with the relief granted in similar cases.4. The judgment emphasized that the directions issued were subject to the final outcome in SLP No. 7636/2019, ensuring that the resolution of the present matter was contingent upon the final decision in the mentioned Special Leave Petition.5. In conclusion, the High Court's decision in this case mirrored the relief provided in previous judgments concerning similar issues, highlighting the consistent application of legal principles and precedents in matters related to VAT forms and rectification requests.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
