Commissioner or its delegates does not have power to impose fine U/s. 70(5) of DVAT Act
Shubham Marketing, Bharat Ram Raj Kumar & Co. Vs. Commissioner Value Added Tax [2015 (5) TMI 563 – DELHI HIGH COURT] In the instant case, Shubham Marketing and Bharat Ram Raj Kumar & Co. (“the Petitioners”) have filed Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking to quash default Notices of assessment of penalty in Form DVAT-24A issued under Section 33 of the DVAT Actfor non-filing of Stock Statement online in Form Stock-I. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that imposition of fine under Section 70(5) of the DVAT Act is for an “offence” as defined under Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which shall be tried by the Hon’ble Court of criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Commissioner or its delegates do not have power or jurisdiction to impose such fine.
Shubham Marketing, Bharat Ram Raj Kumar & Co. Vs. Commissioner Value Added Tax [2015 (5) TMI 563 – DELHI HIGH COURT] In the instant case, Shubham Marketing and Bharat Ram Raj Kumar & Co. (“the Petitioners”) have filed Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking to quash default Notices of assessment of penalty in Form DVAT-24A issued under Section 33 of the DVAT Actfor non-filing of Stock Statement online in Form Stock-I. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that imposition of fine under Section 70(5) of the DVAT Act is for an “offence” as defined under Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which shall be tried by the Hon’ble Court of criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Commissioner or its delegates do not have power or jurisdiction to impose such fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment