TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. The common question that arises in all these writ petitions concerns the validity of orders passed by the "Designated Authority" rejecting the Petitioners" applications under the Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme, 2013 (hereafter "Amnesty Scheme"). 2. Under Section 107 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ("DVAT Act"), the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ("GNCTD") is empowered to notify, in the official gazette, amnesty scheme(s) covering payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other dues under the DVAT Act relating to any period ending before 1st April 2013 subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein. 3. Pursuant thereto the Amnesty Scheme was notified by the GNCTD on 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applications filed were processed by the DT&T and a discharge certificate in DSC-3 was issued on 20th June 2014 for all the years for which the applications were filed providing immunity as per Clause 5 of the Amnesty Scheme. Similarly, a discharge certificate in DSC-3 was issued to the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 2398/2015 on 19th August 2014. However it is stated in Writ Petition (C) No. 2314/2015 that the Petitioner was not issued a discharge certificate in DSC-3 as stipulated in Clause 4 of the Amnesty Scheme. 7. At this stage it must be noted that Clause 4 of the Amnesty Scheme sets out in detail the procedure for making of the declaration and payment of tax dues. Under Clause 4(1), the declaration is expected to be made to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause as to why he should not be required to pay the tax dues unpaid or short-paid as per the provisions of the Scheme. (2) If the Commissioner is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the declaration made by the dealer was substantially false, (i) he shall within three months of service of notice under sub-clause (1) make assessment of tax and penalty under section 32 and 33 of the Act, as if that dealer had never made declaration under this Scheme. However, the dealer shall be entitled to the credit, of tax paid by him under this Scheme; and (ii) such dealer may be proceeded under sub-section (2) of section 89 of the Act for furnishing of false declaration. (3) No notice shall be issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for passed for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. By and order dated 13th March 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2536/2015, this court directed the Respondents to not give effect to the abovementioned assessment orders. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3909/2015 challenging the orders passed under Section 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act. 14. The impugned orders passed in the other writ petitions were likewise issued by the concerned Additional Commissioner in similar fashion. 15. The short question that arises for consideration of the Court is whether the rejection of the applications of the Petitioners by the Additional Commissioners acting as "Designated Authority" was without jurisdiction inasmuch as Clause 8 of the Amne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the DVAT Act, orders have been issued by the Commissioner from time to time delegating the powers of the Commissioner to various other officers subordinate to the Commissioner. One such recent order is an order dated 12th November 2013 issued under Section 68 of the DVAT Act by the Commissioner. The order contains four columns where Column 1 gives the serial number, Column 2 gives the Section of the DVAT Act, Column 3 gives the description of powers and Column 4 gives the description of the officer to whom the power is delegated. In other words, section-wise there is a specific delegation of powers to various officers by designation. What is significant, as far as this order is concerned, is that in the column which gives the section of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether the power under Section 36A(8) of the DVAT Act could be exercised by an officer other than the Commissioner, particularly when that provision envisages the powers being exercised only by the Commissioner. Just as in the present case, there the Respondents were unable to produce before the Court an order issued by the Commissioner delegating his powers under Section 36A(8) of the DVAT Act to any other subordinate officer. In the circumstances, the Court negatived the plea that the Commissioner could have authorised a VATO to exercise such powers without issuing a specific order of delegation of such power. 23. Consequently, as far as the present cases are concerned, the Court is satisfied that the impugned orders rejecting Petition....