TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi, to maintain a single reserve of 'Bullion' instead of storing the same in a scattered manner in different branches. The petitioner further asserts that since the transactions do not involve sale of 'Bullion' to a third party instead, it only involved the transfer of 'Bullion' between the two branches of the petitioner Bank, therefore, the petitioner initiated the process of obtaining the 'F' Forms for availing the benefit envisaged under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CST Act'). 3. In Delhi, the VAT Authorities have created an online platform for the purpose of issuance of 'F' Forms. The petitioner accessed the said online facility, uploaded the relevant documents and also mentioned the required details, however, the 'F' Forms were not issued to the petitioner. Each time the online portal denied the issuance of the 'F' Forms on the ground that, "Your following demands are pending. Kindly pay the due amount and update the information on Payment Reconciliation link before submitting request for Central Declaration Forms". On approaching the respondent no. 2, the petitioner was advised to clear all the outstanding VAT demands a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi) Rules'] which mandate an opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner and passing of a reasoned order before denial of the 'F' Forms to the petitioner. He places reliance on the judgments of this Court in Infiniti Retail Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., WP(C) 3984 of 2020 dated 07.07.2020 and Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Value Added Tax & Ors., WP(C) 5626 of 2019 dated 24.09.2021. He submits that it is only after notice had been issued in the present petition by this Court that the respondents passed an Order dated 16.06.2021, declining the request of the petitioner for downloading of the 'F' Forms from the web portal, however, again taking the ground of pendency of demands against the petitioner. He submits that this Order cannot be treated as one complying with the mandate of Rule 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rule 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules insofar as it permits the withholding of issuance of the 'F' Forms on account of same pending demand, is ultra vires the CST Act. He submits that the State Government is only empowered to 'administer' the CS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er filed rectification application before the Assessing Authority on 31.03.2021. Prior to filing of above application, the dealer had filed the objection before the Special Commissioner (OHA). 09-10 5,79,15,763/- The Dealer has approached the High Court against the order dated 30.01.2020 who thereby upheld the issue of Sale of repossessed motor vehicle meaning thereby demand towards tax, interest and penalty are confirmed. There is no stay granted by the HC against the above order till now. It is worthwhile to mention that the dealer had filed the stay application before the Hon'ble ATVAT in which he stated that an amount of Rs. 99 lakhs has been deposited out of total tax and interest to the tune of Rs. 99 Lakhs. In other words, if there was a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment on the issue involved, then the dealer would not have deposited the above amount. The Tribunal while disposing the stay application has appreciated that the SC has not granted any stay on the issue rather it was on recovery of the amount, not otherwise. 11-12 89,63,435/- The Dealer has approached the High Court against the order dated 30.01.2020 who thereby upheld the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the demand raised by the AA. No stay granted by the Special Commissioner (OHA) till now. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are certain typographical errors in the above chart, most notably of the total tax and interest amount outstanding against the petitioner being Rs.4,35,86,828/- instead of Rs. 99 lakhs referred in the Chart. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in terms of Circular No. 13 of 2013-14 dated 23.08.2013, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Trade and Taxes, the respondents have been mandated to ensure that no dues are pending against the dealer before granting approval for issuance of the Forms, including 'F' Forms, under the CST Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the present case, as there were admittedly pending demands against the petitioner, the facility for issuance of the 'F' Forms has been rightly refused by the respondents. 11. He further submits that an Order dated 16.06.2021 complying with the requirement of Section 5(4)(ii) of the CST (Delhi) Rules has been passed, giving reasons for the denial of the facility of issuance of the 'F' Forms to the petitioner and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no order of stay on the said demand. This Court in the present proceedings cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Courts/Authorities hearing such appeals/objections and hazard a guess as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of demands in those proceedings. The Order of the Supreme Court restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action for recovery of demand is confined only to the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2008-09 and that too, only on the issue of sale of repossessed motor vehicles by the petitioner. In our prima facie opinion, the said Order cannot ipso facto operate against the demand for the other financial years and on other issues. 17. Insofar as the compliance with the proviso to Rule 5(4) of the CST (Delhi) Rules is concerned, admittedly, the respondents have now passed the Order dated 16.06.2021 giving reasons for refusing the facility of issuance of the 'F' Forms to the petitioner. The said Order is not in challenge before us. Therefore, the judgments of this Court in Infiniti Retail Limited (supra) and Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (supra) do not come to the aid of the petitioner at least at this stage of the proceedings.....