Kirpa Ram Ramjidass vs. Commissioner Of Vat, Delhi And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Kirpa Ram Ramjidas, filed objections before the Objection Hearing Authority concerning Assessment Orders dated August 26, 2011, issued by the Value Added Tax Officer, Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD. These assessment orders pertain to the tax period 2007-08 and involve certain demands. The Petitioner contends that if these objections are not decided within the time prescribed by Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, they are deemed to have been allowed. The Respondent-Department claims the objections were not filed within time, citing a delay of over 10 years, and were therefore not acknowledged. The Petitioner disputes this, relying on hearing notices that allegedly mention the objections and a notice sent on February 18, 2019, for deciding these objections.
Held
The Court noted a factual dispute regarding whether the Petitioner's objections were filed within the prescribed time and the genuineness of the hearing notices. Consequently, the Court held that the decision in ITD-ITD CEM JV (supra) would not be applicable in this case due to these factual disputes. The Court disposed of the petition by issuing specific directions. The Petitioner is to appear before the Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) Department on May 15, 2025, at 11:30 a.m., to present proof of filing the objections. The DVAT Department is directed to verify the authenticity of the hearing notices relied upon by the Petitioner. If the objections are found to have been filed within the time limit, the DVAT Department shall decide them after hearing the Petitioner and pass an order within two months from the date of that hearing. The Petitioner retains liberty to pursue further remedies if necessary.
Key Issues
1. Whether the objections filed by the Petitioner before the Objection Hearing Authority with respect to the Assessment Orders dated August 26, 2011, were filed within the time prescribed under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and are thus deemed to have been allowed due to non-decision? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that if the objections are not decided within the stipulated time under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, they are deemed to have been allowed. They relied on hearing notices and a notice dated February 18, 2019, indicating that the objections were indeed filed and being considered. They also cited the decision in ITD-ITD CEM JV v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax to support their contention that non-decision within the prescribed period leads to the objections being deemed allowed. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondent-Department contended that the objections were not filed within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of over 10 years, and therefore, they were not acknowledged by the Objection Hearing Authority. They disputed the Petitioner's claim that the objections were filed in time.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 03.04.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The issue that has been raised in this petition is that objections of the Petitioner filed before the Objection Hearing Authority with respect to the Assessment Orders dated 26th August, 2011 passed by Office of the Value Added Tax Officer, Department of Trade and Taxes GNCTD, against the Petitioner containing certain demands have not yet been decided.
The Court notices that demands in the Assessment Orders relate to the period 2007-08. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Vineet Bhatia, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that these objections, if not decided within the time period prescribed under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act,2004, are deemed to have been allowed.
On behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that the objections are not acknowledged by the Objection Hearing Authority, Department of Trade and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:49:19
Taxes, GNCTD as they were never filed within time. It is further submitted that there was a delay of more than 10 years in filing the said objections.
This submission is opposed by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner who relies on certain hearing notices which are alleged to have been given to the Petitioner wherein the said objections are mentioned.
Let the veracity of the hearing notices be confirmed by the Respondent- Department.
It is further submitted by Mr. Bhatia, ld. Counsel that a notice was also sent to the Petitioner on 18th February, 2019 for deciding the said objections. He has also placed reliance upon the decision in W.P.(C) 5820/2022 titled ITD-ITD CEM JV v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax to state that since the objections filed by the Petitioner have not been decided within the time period prescribed under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act,2004 they are thus deemed to have been allowed.
Since there is a factual dispute as to whether the objections were filed in time or not and whether the hearing notices are genuine or not, the decision in ITD-ITD CEM JV (supra) would not have an application in this case.
In view of the stand taken by the Petitioner and by the Respondent- Department, this petition is disposed of in the following terms: i) The Petitioner shall appear before the Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) Department on 15th May, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. and shall show the proper proof of filing of the objections; ii) The DVAT Department shall also consider the veracity of these hearing notices which has been relied upon by the Petitioner; iii) If the objections are shown to have been filed within time, then the same shall be decided after hearing the Petitioner and an order shall This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:49:19
be passed within a period of two months from the date of hearing.
The petition, therefore, is disposed of in these terms with liberty to the Petitioner to avail his remedies in accordance with law, if required. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 3, 2025/Rahul/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:49:19
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.