TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty under Section 33 of the DVAT Act) for the third quarter of 2013-14 as well as two penalty notices-both dated 16th December, 2014 issued under Section 86 (14) of the DVAT Act. 2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the challenge in the writ petition was also to the notices dated 19th June, 2015 issued by the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act in respect of the purchases made by the Petitioner-Assessee from Global Sales Agency ('GSA') and Omega Sales Corp. ('OSC') for the third quarter of 2013 and from JBN Impex Private Ltd. ('JBN Impex') for the second quarter of 2013 and to the orders dated 19th June 2015 which were subsequently withdrawn by the order dated 17th July, 2015. 3. The reason for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority (OHA) by an order dated 31st August, 2015. 5. The order dated 9th March 2015 being the order of default assessment of tax, interest under Section 32 of the DVAT Act calls upon the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 66,68,079 as the total tax due for the third quarter of 2013 in respect of two purchases made - one each from GSA and OSC. The said purchases were termed as purchases were made from 'suspicious/bogus' dealers. The said order sought to reverse the input tax credit claimed in respect of both the said purchases. The tax amount was assessed at Rs. 57,18,630/- and interest calculated at Rs. 9,49,449/- on the said tax amount. The said order appears to be a machine generated order which simply notes the presence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em generated notices being issued and the mistake was realized subsequently and those notices stood withdrawn. It is further pointed out that similar system generated notices dated 19th June, 2015, which stood withdrawn by the letter dated 17th July, 2015, have been set aside by this Court in its judgment dated 28th August, 2015 in W.P. (C) 7379/2015 (Bhumika Enterprises v. Commissioner Value Added Tax). 8. It is finally submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent that if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 9th March 2015, the appropriate course was to file an appeal against the order before the OHA in accordance with law instead of filing the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncorrect returns/furnished a return that does not comply with the requirements of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004/ any other reason" The above order in Form DVAT-24 is in a pre-printed format and is unsigned. Therefore, it is not possible to make out which of the above alternatives provided in the captioned preamble paragraph applies to the case on hand. It fails to spell out the reasons for the VATO concluding that the purchases in question were made from suspicious/bogus dealers. In effect, it is a non-speaking order and it is impossible to discern what reasons weighed with the VATO while issuing such an order. 12. It is sought to be asserted by the counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner did appear before the VATO and produced t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anomaly. 14. Added to this is the fact that in respect of the very same period for which the order dated 9th March 2015 was passed, i.e. for the third quarter of 2013, and in respect of the very same purchases transactions involving GSR and OSC, notices were again issued and order passed on 19th June, 2015 which was sought to be rectified on 17th July, 2015. It is, therefore, plain that needless confusion has been created by the DT&T by resorting to machine generated orders which were unsigned. These were issued without application of mind by the VATO concerned. Therefore, although in the normal course, the Petitioner would be expected to challenge the order of default assessment by filing an appeal before the OHA in terms of the DVAT Act....