India Tourism Development Corporation v. The Value Added Tax Officer & Ors

ORDER , 24.09.2010 Today by separate order, we have disposed of writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 1857512004, 1857712004 and 492612005 with regard to assessment years 2000-200I, 200I-2002 and 2002-2003. In the aforesaid writ petitions, we have' directed the Additional Commissioner to dispose of the pending appeals without insisting on pre-deposit within a period of three months. Consequently, for the present assessment years namely, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 74 under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Let the objections be filed within six weeks from the receipt of this order. If the objections are rejected, liberry is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall hear the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit. ' Though we have not quashed the order, yet the appellate authority shall give the fullest opportunity of hearing to the assessee. page 2 of3. oh .{ ht When we say so, we are invoking the doctrine of post decisional hearing. Needleis to say, the learned counsel for the parties are atliberty to file appropriate decisions before the appellate authority. _t _e^ The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be t no order as to costs. frz->v CHIEF JUSTICE tp ll*-5{.. MANMOIIIil{;J SEPTEMBER 24,20tti js T3 page 3 of 3.

R-13 and 15 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-13 + w.P.(c) 12638/2009 ? I\{/S INDIA TQURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Randhir Chawla, Advocate with Ms. Renu Sehgal, Advocate. versus TI{E SALES TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents ough: I\ft. H.L. Taneja, Advocate with M1. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate with R-l5 + w.P.(c) 4649/2010 NI/S INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Though: Mr. Randhir Chawla, Advocate with ---L/ Ms. Renu sehgal, Advocate. I vtrsus TIm VALLIE.ADDED TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. H.L. Taneja, Advocate with ' Nk. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate CORAM: HON.'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN t page I of 3. \^ Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. €