M/S Arham Medisales LLP vs. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Arham Medisales LLP, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Respondent to issue Form ‘C’ for goods transferred in inter-state trade. The petition was adjourned sine die pending a Supreme Court decision in a related appeal, Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes v. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. The parties also relied on other High Court decisions, including GSP Power System Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr., which dealt with similar issues regarding correction of returns and issuance of statutory forms under the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules. The Petitioner sought to rectify its DVAT returns for the third and fourth quarters of FY 2013-14 to enable the issuance of ‘C’ Forms.
Held
The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to rectify its DVAT returns for the third and fourth quarters of FY 2013-14 to enable the issuance of the requisite ‘C’ Forms. However, this direction was made subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court in the Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. case and M/s Commissioner, VAT Delhi & Ors. v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Court explicitly stated that this direction would abide by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in those appeals. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the operative relief was conditional.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to rectify its DVAT returns for the third and fourth quarters of FY 2013-14 to enable the issuance of Form ‘C’? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the action of the respondent in not allowing revision of details for the requirement of Form ‘F’ (or ‘C’ in this context) is perverse in law, as it is contrary to the provisions of the DVAT Act and Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, which permit the issuance of such forms. They relied on a High Court judgment directing the release of Form ‘F’, though an SLP against it was pending in the Supreme Court. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent contended that the decision in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT&T & Anr. is under challenge before the Supreme Court, and the Court had granted leave. They also pointed out that similar High Court decisions were appealed in the Supreme Court, and the operation of those judgments was stayed. The Respondent further argued that in similar matters, the High Court had either adjourned cases or allowed petitions but suspended the directions pending the Supreme Court's decision.
Sections Cited
Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20th May, 2025 + M/S ARHAM MEDISALES LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Ms. Nisha Mohan Das, Ms. Girish Kumar Kaul, Mr. Kunwar Raj Singh, Advocates. Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Asstt. Commissioner, Ward 208-206, KCS Zone, Deptt. Of Trade & Taxes. adityamithila@gmail.com CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Arham Medisales LLP. under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondent to issue Form ‘C’ to the Petitioner in respect of the goods transferred under inter-state trade and commerce.
The present case was adjourned sine die vide order dated 6th W.P.(C) 7354/2017 November, 2017 which reads as under: “Adjourned sine die with liberty to the counsel for the parties to get the writ petition listed, after decision of the Supreme Court.’
Ld. Counsel for the parties submits that the appeal being C.A. No. 004573/2017 titled ‘Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes v. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.’ filed by the Department assailing the judgment dated 1st February passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 8272/2015 titled ‘Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr.’ is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Ld. Counsel for the parties have relied upon certain other decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench including the decision in W.P. (C) 7411/2020 titled Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr.. The said matter was also a similar matter decided while the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court against Ingram Micro (Supra). The operative portion of the said decision reads as under:
Present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection by respondent authorities of petitioner's request for correction of the return filed for first quarter of Year 2017-18 and refusal to give statutory forms under Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules.
Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner's revision of returns for the year 2017-18 as per the provisions of DVAT Act and Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner failed to mention the details of Inter-State branch transfers for the first quarter of Year 2017-18 in the Form 2A uploaded on the DVAT website while filing his returns. He W.P.(C) 7354/2017 further states that petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to grant permission to revise the aforesaid returns but the said request was rejected.
He submits that action of the respondent no.2 of not allowing revision of details of requirement of form 'F', is perverse in law as it is contrary to the provisions of the DVAT Act and Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules which permit issuance of forms.
He relies upon the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.8709/2018 whereby this Court had directed the respondent to release the concerned form 'F' within two weeks. He, however, points out that SLP preferred. against the said judgment has been admitted and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam, learned Additional Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the decision of this Court in M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT&T & Anr., W.P. (C No. 8272/2015 is under challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4573/2017 and the Supreme Court has granted leave in the said matter vide order dated 27th March, 2017. He also points out that this Court rendered decisions in several similar cases, including W.P. (C) No. 2633/2017, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT decided on 11th April, 2017, which have been appealed against in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the judgment of this Court.
Mr. Satyakam points out that in the light of the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court, while deciding another writ petition i.e. Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 8435/2018, decided on 04th December, 2018, this Court issued directions for issuance of segregated and separate ‘C' Forms. However, the directions issued by this Court were suspended till the Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court were pending.
Same is the position in the decision of this Court in Allied Automation Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, W.P. (C) No. 9474/2018 decided on 10th W.P.(C) 7354/2017 September, 2018, in M/s. Samsung C&T Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Trade & Taxes, & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 4092/2017 decided on 15th February, 2019, in E.I. Dupont India Private Limited v. Commissioner, VAT, Delhi & Anr, C.M. No. 47356/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 4952/2017 decided on 27th February, 2019 and C G Power And Industrial Solutions Limited vs Department of Trade and Taxes & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 3024/2019 decided on 15th January, 2020. 10. Mr. Satyakam contends that this Court has recently in similar matters been either adjourning matters or is allowing the petition but suspending the 11. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent no.2 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return of first Quarter for the Financial Year 2017-18. However, this direction shall remain suspended till the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, taken note of hereinabove, are decided and this direction shall abide by the decision that the Supreme Court renders.
With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition and pending application stand disposed of.
Following the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in GSP Power System Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), in the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is permitted to rectify its DVAT returns for the third and fourth quarter of F.Y. 2013-14 in order to enable the issuance of the requisite ‘C’ Forms to the Petitioner.
These directions shall however remain suspended till the appeal in Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) as also the M/s Commissioner, VAT Delhi & Ors. v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [SLP(C) No. 13928/2017] are pending before the Supreme Court and are decided. This direction shall abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case. W.P.(C) 7354/2017 8. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 20, 2025 v/ck
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.