Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of VAT & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 21 Feb 2017
S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmiwaziri
W.P.(C) 6858/2014
tax petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions restraining VAT recovery from wholesale dealers after the VAT and Excise departments resolved their dispute through an inter-departmental agreement.

Full Text
Translation output
$-20, 27 & 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6858/2014
MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. A.K. Babbar, Mr. Surendra Kumar, Mr. Atul Babbar, Mr. Bharat Tirpathi and Ms. Amita Babbar, Advs.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF VAT &ORS. Respondent
Through Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC
W.P.(C) 11912/2016,CM APPL. 46984/2016
UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED Petitioner
Through Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.P.
Devnath, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Aniket Ghose and
Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Advs.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondent
Through Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for Govt. of NCTD
W.P.(C) 561/2017, CM APPL. 2602/2017
RADICO KHAITAN LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.Karan Sachdev and Mr. Aniket Ghose, Advs.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose andMs. Pratishtha Vij, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
21.02.2017
ORDER

1. This Court had while issuing notice recorded on 27.01.2017 as W.P.(C) 6858/2014 &561/2017 Page 1of[3] * + + + 2017:DHC:9016-DB follows:

2. XXX

3. XXX 4 XXX

5. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate accepts notice on behalfofthe respondents...

6. The Court has been informed that in the previous case United Spirits Limited Vs. Government ofNCT ofDelhi &Ors., W.P.(C). No.46985/2016, which involves an identical issue, on 20.12.2016 it was stated that an inter •departmental meeting involving the VAT ^ Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of NCJ ofDelhi, ^would be held to resolve the issue. That petition is listed on 21.02.2017.

7. List the presentpetition too on that date i.e. 21.02.2017..:

8. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive measure to recover the amounts assessed by the impugned default assessment order, in the meanwhile. "

2. Today, the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the revenue submitted that pursuant to a meeting held on 10.02.2017, under the^ aegis of the Principal Secretary (Finance), the Commissioner (VAT) and Excise Commissioner have resolved the differences and in fact reached an agreement that VAT would not be charged fifn the wholesale dealers. The decision recorded inter alia in the terms - as evident from the minutes of the meeting dated 10.02.2017 extracted vide compliance report dated 20.02.2017. W.P.(C) 6858/2014 & 561/2017

3. In view of the above, the grievances of the survive. petitioners' do not

4. The payments made by the VAT department shall therefore not be enforced against the petitioners.

5. The writ petitions are disposed off.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

FEBRUARY 21,2017/acm NAJMIWAZIRI, J