Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.05.2022
VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
Through: Mr Satyakam, ASC
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 25774/2022
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 635 days in filing the present appeal.
3. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned.
4. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
5. Issue notice.
5.1. Mr Satyakam accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
6. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal today itself.
7. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi [in short ‘Tribunal’] dated 25.06.2018 and 29.12.2021. 2022:DHC:2262-DB
8. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal, while disposing of its statutory appeal, examined an issue which did not emerge from the order of the Assessing Authority and/or the order passed by the Objection Hearing Authority [in short ‘OHA’] i.e., orders dated 11.04.2016 and 16.10.2017 respectively. The said orders are marked as Annexure A-II and A-III, and are appended on pages 37 and 38 of the case file.
8.1. The record shows that, both, before the Assessing Officer as well as the OHA, the point in issue was: whether the appellants should get the benefit of the concessional rate of tax.?
8.2. The appellant had claimed concessional rate of tax based on C-Forms issued by the purchaser located in the State of Rajasthan. It appears that the registration of the dealer i.e., the purchaser located in the State of Rajasthan was cancelled, albeit, retrospectively. It is on account of this circumstance that the appellant was denied the benefit of C-Forms issued by the dealer i.e., the purchaser.
8.3. Since the appellant was aggrieved, the matter escalated to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while hearing the appeal, was drawn into an argument advanced on behalf of respondents/revenue-which was, that the appellant will have to, in the first instance, establish that the subject transactions were inter-state sale transactions.
8.4. The Tribunal, via order dated 25.06.2018, appears to have accepted this plea advanced on behalf of the respondents/ revenue.
8.5. This impelled the appellant to file a review application. The review application was, essentially, pivoted on the fact that the authorities below i.e., the Accessing Officer and/or the OHA had raised no doubt with regard to the fact that the subject transactions were inter-state sale transactions.
8.6. Therefore, the argument advanced in the review application on behalf of the appellant was that the Tribunal ought not to have considered this aspect, and that too for the first time in appeal, without giving any opportunity to the appellant to establish that the subject transactions were inter-state sale transactions.
9. We may note that along with this appeal, the appellant has filed certain documents, which includes invoices, goods receipts, C-Forms and screenshots of the website of the Rajasthan Trade and Tax Department, as also the confirmation received from the transporter, who, according to the appellant, carried the goods from Delhi to Rajasthan.
10. Mr Satyakam, however, vigorously opposes any direction being issued by this Court, vis-à-vis impugned orders passed by the Tribunal.
11. However, Mr Satyakam cannot but accept that no opportunity was given to the appellant by the Tribunal to establish that the subject transactions were inter-state sale transactions.
11.1. If that is the undisputed position, in our view, since the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, it ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant that the subject transaction were inter-state sale transactions, contrary to what was contended by the respondents/revenue.
11.2. The Tribunal could have also taken recourse to an alternative route, which was to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for determination of this very issue i.e. whether or not the subject transactions were inter-state sales transactions.
11.3. Concededly, the Tribunal took recourse to neither route, and simply ruled against the appellant, both in the appeal as well as in the review application. This approach cannot pass muster as it violates established principles of fairness and according equal opportunity to disputants who are present before an adjudicator.
12. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 25.06.2018 and 29.12.2021.
12.1. It is ordered accordingly.
13. The matter is, thus, remanded to the Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
13.1. In case the Tribunal is of the view that it needs to examine, as to whether the subject transactions were, in fact, inter-state sale transactions, it will give due opportunity to the appellant to establish its case.
13.2. As noted above, certain documents have already been placed on record by the appellant before this Court. In the event that additional documents are required to be filed, opportunity in that regard will also be given, not only to the appellant, but also to the respondents/revenue.
14. To hasten the proceedings, the appellant will appear before the Tribunal on 14.07.2022.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J MAY 27, 2022 Click here to check corrigendum, if any