Srf Limited vs. Commissioner Of Vat And Anr

Held

The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Consequently, the Court directed respondent no.1 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return for the fourth quarter of the year 2015-16. However, this direction was made subject to a significant condition: it would remain suspended until the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, which were noted in the judgment, are decided. The Court explicitly stated that its direction would abide by the final decision rendered by the Supreme Court in those appeals. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the operative relief was contingent on external proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, SRF Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 11, 2019, by the Commissioner of VAT, which rejected its request for the issuance of Form ‘F’. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner failed to rectify an error in its returns within the specified time. The petitioner had erroneously omitted goods valued at Rs. 1,75,01,990/- from eight stock transfer invoices in its returns for the fourth quarter of 2015-16. Upon discovering this mistake, the petitioner sought permission to amend its revised return to download Form ‘F’ for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, but its request was denied due to the expiry of the time limit for filing revised returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 ought to have prescribed conditions for issuing 'F' forms to the Petitioner-Company in terms of Rule 8 of CST (Delhi) Rules, 2005, instead of rejecting the request? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent No. 1 should have followed Rule 8 of the CST (Delhi) Rules, 2005, to prescribe conditions for issuing 'F' forms, rather than outright rejecting the request. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decision in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner DT&T & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 8272/2015. Revenue's contention: The respondents submitted that the decision in M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. was under challenge before the Supreme Court, which had granted leave. They further pointed out that the Supreme Court had passed interim orders in similar matters, leading this Court to either adjourn matters or allow petitions but suspend relief until the pending Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court were decided. They cited several other High Court decisions where directions were suspended pending Supreme Court decisions.