SHUBHAMMARKETING Vs. COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present two writ petitions have been filed by M/s Shubham Marketing and Bharat Ram Raj Kumar & Co. (hereinafter referred to as "petitioners") seeking to quash the default notices dated 08.03.2013 and 21.02.2013 (impugned herein) of assessment of penalty in form DVAT- 24A issued under Section 33 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred as "the said Act") for non-filing of stock statement online in form Stock-I. Since these petitions raise identical issues, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The VATO/AVATO issued the default notices of assessment of penalty. In the said notices it is observed that the petitioners have a liability to pay penalty under Section 86 of the said Act. The VATO/AVATO has imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 70(5) of the said Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the respondent-commissioner or his delegate does not have the power or jurisdiction to impose fine as a punishment under the provisions of Section 70(5) of the said Act, as the power to impose fine vests with the courts of criminal jurisdiction only.