Louis Dreyfus Company INDIA PVT LTD vs. Joint Commissioner Vat Zone & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 29, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Delhi VAT Zone-8. The petitioner sought a direction to issue Form ‘F’ for stock transfers valued at ₹4,95,53,449/- from its Gujarat branch to its Delhi operations for the first quarter of the financial year 2017-18 (April 2017 to June 2017). The petitioner had inadvertently failed to mention these details in its DVAT/CST return for the said period. The respondent rejected the request, citing the petitioner's failure to rectify the error within the specified time.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's request for Form ‘F’ was based on an inadvertent error in filing returns. However, the Court noted that the petitioner's reliance on the precedent of M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. was problematic, as that decision, along with others in similar matters, was under challenge before the Supreme Court, and in some cases, the operation of the High Court's judgments had been stayed. Considering the pending appeals before the Supreme Court, the High Court directed the respondent No.1 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return for the first quarter of 2017-18. Crucially, this direction was explicitly stated to remain suspended until the civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court were decided, and the relief granted would abide by the Supreme Court's final decision. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the issuance of Form ‘F’ for stock transfers, despite the delay in rectifying the error in its DVAT/CST returns for the period April 2017 to June 2017? (Question of law and fact, concerning the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Central Sales Tax Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the omission was an inadvertent mistake and sought to rectify it by requesting Form ‘F’. They relied on the High Court's order in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT&T & Anr. Respondents' Contention: The respondents submitted that the High Court's decision in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. was under challenge before the Supreme Court, with leave granted. They also pointed out that similar decisions of the High Court in other cases, including M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner, VAT, had been appealed before the Supreme Court, and their operation had been stayed. They further contended that in similar matters, the High Court had either adjourned cases or allowed relief suspended until the pending Supreme Court appeals were decided.