TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [in short "DVAT Act"] and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short "CST Act"], respectively. 1.1. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said orders. 1.2. These orders will be collectively referred to hereafter as 'impugned assessment orders.' 2. There are several other prayers sought in the writ petition, which are consequential in nature. 3. Before we proceed further, the following facts are required to be noticed for adjudication of the instant writ petition: 3.1. The period in issue, vis-à-vis which the impugned assessment orders have been passed is Financial Year (FY) 2011-2012. 3.2. In the normal course, assessment under Section 32 of the DVAT Act was required to be comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts audited balance sheet, bank record, GR/RRs and the record of inter-state sales and transfer of goods, along with statutory declaration forms. 3.9. It is in this backdrop that the respondent/revenue, in the first instance, proceeded to pass assessment orders on 18.01.2018 [hereafter referred to as "first batch of assessment orders"] 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged one of the orders from amongst the first batch of assessment orders. 4.1. The writ petition was numbered as W.P.(C) No. 9203/2018, and the same was allowed via order dated 31.08.2018. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 18.01.2018; the others were possi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riggered provisions of the DVAT Act and included them, along with other transactions, which in any case, according to him, were covered by the DVAT Act, being local sales. 5. That apart, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment orders were passed after the prescribed period of limitation had expired. 5.1. Mr Rajesh Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the extended period of limitation could have been triggered against the petitioner only if the Commissioner had formed an opinion which impelled him to believe that the petitioner had either concealed, omitted or failed to disclose material particulars and hence, failed to pay the requisite tax. 5.2. It is Mr Jain's contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw.' 7.3. The respondent/revenue, it appears, took this as a green signal from the Court to pass the impugned assessment orders. 8. As noted above, the impugned assessment orders are founded on the intelligence input received by the respondent/revenue as far back as on 19.08.2015. 8.1. We may note that the initial input, for whatever it was worth, was received by the respondents/revenue, well before the date when the period of four years for carrying out assessment in the usual and normal course would have expired. 8.2. In the petitioner's case, with respect to the financial year in issue i.e., FY 2011-2012, the four-year period expired on 31.03.2016. 8.3. Curiously, no action was taken by the respondent/revenue after receivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Commissioner and the formation of the belief that tax has not paid by the assessee. Reasons have to be bona fide and honest. Reasons are required to have a rational nexus with formation of belief. Belief should be based on material which relevant and cogent. The expression 'reason to believe' does not have, in law, the same connotation as "reason to suspect". [See ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 SCC 757; S. Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt Ltd., Calcutta vs. ITO and Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 143 and Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt vs. ITO, (2021) 435 ITR 642.] 10.1. This problem, insofar as the respondent/revenue is concerned, was further enmeshed in legal quagmire when the notice under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act was issued to the petitioner on 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pposite. "16. To summarise the legal position explained in the above decision: (i) The normal period of limitation for passing of a default assessment order under Section 32 of the DVAT Act, where material facts are disclosed, is four years. (ii) The extended period of limitation of six years would only apply if there is omission, concealment or failure to disclose material particulars. (iii) The proviso to Section 34 mandates satisfaction of two conditions. The first is formation of "reasons to believe" by the Commissioner. Such "reasons to believe" for reopening of assessment should be recorded in writing. (iv) Secondly, the "reasons to believe" must have nexus and live link with failure to pay....