Mukesh Agencies v. CTT & Ors.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(VAT) 0455 (Del-HC) IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT S. MURALIDHAR & TALWANT SINGH, JJ. Mukesh Agencies v. CTT & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 13272/2018 & CM Appl. No. 51615/2018 (Direction) 25 July, 2019 Petitioner by: Varun Nischal, Arif Ahmed Khan and Gauri Grover, Advocates Respondents by: Satyakam, ASC/GNCTD. P.W. Tapri, AVATO, Ward-3. Akshay Allagh, DTT, GNCTD ORDER *S. Muralidhar, J.* The Petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the Respondents and in particular the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) to dispose of the Petitioner's objections filed against the assessment order for the second quarter of 2009-10. 2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a proprietorship registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). For the second quarter of 2009-10, the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) framed notices of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty under section 9 of CST Act on 6/7-1-2011 creating demand of tax and interest as well as penalty. 3. On 3-3-2011 the Petitioner filed objections against the above notices of default assessment in Form DVAT-38 along with acknowledgment, dated 3-3-2011. Copies of the form DVAT-38 along with the acknowledgement received by the Petitioner have been enclosed as Annexure P-4 (collectively) to the petition. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(VAT) 0455 (Del-HC)

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

S. MURALIDHAR & TALWANT SINGH, JJ.

Mukesh Agencies v. CTT & Ors.

W.P.(C) No. 13272/2018 & CM Appl. No. 51615/2018 (Direction)

25 July, 2019

Petitioner by: Varun Nischal, Arif Ahmed Khan and Gauri Grover, Advocates

Respondents by: Satyakam, ASC/GNCTD. P.W. Tapri, AVATO, Ward-3. Akshay Allagh, DTT, GNCTD

ORDER

S. Muralidhar, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the failure of the Respondents and in particular the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) to dispose of the Petitioner's objections filed against the assessment order for the second quarter of 2009-10.

2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is a proprietorship registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). For the second quarter of 2009-10, the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) framed notices of default assessment of tax, interest and penalty under section 9 of CST Act on 6/7-1-2011 creating demand of tax and interest as well as penalty.

3. On 3-3-2011 the Petitioner filed objections against the above notices of default assessment in Form DVAT-38 along with acknowledgment, dated 3-3-2011. Copies of the form DVAT-38 along with the acknowledgement received by the Petitioner have been enclosed as Annexure P-4 (collectively) to the petition.