2026 (9) TMI 1909

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no.2 issued a notice under Section 59(2) of the Act for seeking additional information for the reconciliation of Form-09 for the assessment year 2013-14. The notice dated 31.03.1018 was issued stating therein that in absence of production of statutory forms and the supporting documents substantiating the inter-state sales and stock transfers, the transaction against C & F forms were treated as local sales taxable @5%. The intra-state exempt sale was also disallowed and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,89,40,865/- Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner on 23.04.2018 filed objections under Section 74(1) of the Act against the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ards tax and interest and a penalty of Rs. 6,84,57,228/- was levied. 2. The petitioner objected to the aforesaid assessment pursuant to the statutory proceedings provided under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act. 3. The operation of the assessment came to be stayed, subject to the deposit of 5% of the disputed tax and interest, in view of provisions of Section 74(1)(b) of the DVAT Act. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Sub-Section (2) of Section 34 of the DVAT Act mandates the respondent to complete the proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation of one year. 5. Once the same is not completed within a period of one year, the necessary sequel is that the demand cannot be enforced against ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....power with the OHA to remand the matter to the AO. In the event of a remand ordered by the Court or Appellate Tribunal, the fresh decision on remand was required to be taken within one year. It was volunteered by learned counsel for the Petitioner that notwithstanding the above legal position, even if the Petitioner were to assume without admitting that such a power exists with an OHA then in any event the AO was required to pass an order afresh within a maximum period of one year after the date of the order of the OHA. Clearly in the present case no fresh assessment order was passed nor was an order of refund was passed within one year of the date of the order of the OHA. 18. With the notices of default assessment creating the dem....