Shree Kripa Agro vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Kripa Agro, challenged orders dated October 5, 2019, issued under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act, 2004, and a re-assessment order dated October 5, 2019, under Section 32 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Act. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and direct the release of a refund claimed for the second quarter of FY 2016-2017, along with interest. The petitioner contended that assessment orders for FY 2016-2017 had already been passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, rendering the subsequent DVAT Act orders without jurisdiction, citing Section 7 of the DVAT Act and Article 286 of the Constitution. The respondent, Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax, initially sought instructions but later agreed to withdraw the assessment orders dated September 18, 2018, passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated October 5, 2019, issued under Section 32 of the DVAT Act, 2004, concerning all four quarters of FY 2016-17, were indeed passed without jurisdiction. This was because assessment orders for the same financial year had already been passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court found that the respondent's suggestion to withdraw the earlier assessment orders was insufficient. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated October 5, 2019. The Court directed the respondents to process the refund application filed by the petitioner for the second quarter of FY 2016-17 within two weeks of receiving the judgment. The Court also mandated that the aspect of interest, as claimed by the petitioner, would be dealt with during the refund processing. The Court noted the petitioner's calculation of refund and interest due, amounting to Rs. 2,28,20,116/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated October 5, 2019, passed under Section 32 of the DVAT Act, 2004, for the Financial Year 2016-2017, were without jurisdiction, given that assessment orders for the same period had already been passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, thereby violating Section 7 of the DVAT Act and Article 286 of the Constitution? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders because assessments for FY 2016-2017 were already finalized under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This action was contrary to Section 7 of the DVAT Act and Article 286 of the Constitution. The petitioner relied on assessment orders dated September 18, 2018, and an adjustment order dated November 16, 2018, which reflected the finalization of demands and adjustments for that period. Respondent's arguments: The respondent initially sought instructions. Subsequently, they agreed to withdraw the assessment orders dated September 18, 2018, passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for FY 2016-17.