The Delhi High Court in the case Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax observed and has held that it would be open for a person found in the custody of goods for producing the relevant information in its possession with respect to the goods being within a reasonable time required to do so by the Commissioner.
The bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in the case observed and has stated that none of the authorities have even examined that whether the documents which are produced by the appellant established the ownership of the goods which are in question.
In the present case, the main issue raised was weather the goods which are discovered from the godown of the appellant’s were liable to be considered the appellant’s goods in terms of Section 3(9) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004
In the said case, the appellant or assessee is carrying on the business of transportation of goods which being under the name and style of the proprietorship of accused concern. Therefore, the appellant is not a registered dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
It has also been claimed by the appellant in the case that he had taken on the rent of a godown. Thus, the godown was also been inspected by the value-added tax officer, VATO on 09.03.2006 the wherein it was found that rubber was stored on the premises.
The court in the case observed and has set aside the order to the extent that it holds that the presumption as stated under Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act is applicable and a penalty is levied as stated under Section 86(14) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004
Accordingly, the court directed the Appellate Tribunal for considering the documents as produced by the appellant and take an informed decision on the appellant’s appeal, wherein the court restored the appellant’s appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
