TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)<br>GAUHATI HIGH COURT - HC<br>Dated:- 5-8-2024<br>WP(C)/2863/2022, WP(C)/4170/2021, WP(C)/5107/2021, WP(C)/4173/2021, WP(C)/7167/2023, WP(C)/4166/2021, WP(C)/495/2022, WP(C)/4327/2021, WP(C)/4151/2021, WP(C)/489/2022, WP(C)/4168/2021, WP(C)/4085/2021, WP(C)/7236/2021, WP(C)/4100/2021 - -<br>GST<br>HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, CGST., Mr. B. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Govt. of Assam. National Plasto Moulding, M/s. Society Soap Works And Anr, Jugal Kishore Daga, Abhay Associates And Anr, Madhu Jain, Mahabir Prasad Mahendr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in case the selling dealer had failed to deposit the tax collected by it. 2. It is submitted that the Delhi High Court has observed that the provisions of Section 9 (2) (g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 can be read down and the demand raised against the purchasing dealers, who have entered into bona fide transaction, cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the Special Leave Appeal against the said judgment of the Delhi High Court has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.01.2018 vide Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 36750/2017. 3. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent State are not in position to dispute the fact that the controver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
........... 41. The court respectfully concurs with the above analysis and holds that in the present case, the purchasing dealer is being asked to do the impossible, i.e., to anticipate the selling dealer who will not deposit with the Government the tax collected by him from those purchasing dealer and therefore avoid transacting with such selling dealers. Alternatively, what section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act requires the purchasing dealer to do is that after transacting with the selling dealer, somehow ensure that the selling dealer does in fact deposit the tax collected from the purchasing dealer and if the selling dealer fails to do so, undergo the risk of being denied the ITC. Indeed section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act places an onerous bu....