Amorous Communications vs. Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax & Anr.

Held

The Court held that since the demands and penalties formed the basis for the impugned writ of demand, the petitioner was obligated to challenge these underlying demands and penalties through the statutory mechanism provided under the DVAT Act. The Court noted that the respondent had provided a chart indicating that the assessment orders were uploaded on the DVAT portal and reflected in the dealer login. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitioner's statement that they would withdraw the present writ petition to challenge the demands and penalties under the DVAT Act. To facilitate this, the Court stayed the writ of demand dated September 29, 2020, for a period of six weeks. All rights and contentions of the parties were left open. The Court directed that the order be uploaded on the website forthwith and a copy be forwarded to the learned counsel via email.

Facts

The petitioner, Amorous Communications, challenged a writ of demand dated September 29, 2020, issued under Section 137 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954, and a consequential order. This demand was based on alleged default assessments of tax and interest under Section 32 and penalty under Section 33 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the demand was raised solely because the revenue doubted the selling dealers from whom the petitioner had made purchases, despite the petitioner having made purchases from registered dealers based on tax invoices. The petitioner initially claimed the assessment orders were unsigned and passed without notice. The Court then directed the respondent to provide details on the uploading of these assessment orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ of demand dated September 29, 2020, issued under Section 137 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954, is valid when it is based on alleged default assessments of tax and penalty under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, without the petitioner having challenged those underlying assessments through the statutory mechanism? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned demand was raised merely on the ground that the revenue doubted the claims of selling dealers, despite the petitioner having made purchases from registered dealers based on tax invoices. The petitioner initially claimed the assessment orders were unsigned and passed without notice. The petitioner relied on this Court's judgment in On Quest Merchandising India Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 6093/2017. Revenue's contention: The respondent stated that all demands and penalties were available on the dealer login and ward in-charge login, with the order generation date being the uploading date. The respondent clarified that the order dates mentioned in the provided chart were the assessment order dates and were reflected in the dealer and ward logins.