Judgments Cannot Be Read Like Euclid's Theorem; Cannot Be Used To Act Contrary To Statute: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has stressed that the judgments made by a Court of law should also not be interpreted as mandating authorities to act contrary to a statute or to exercise powers far greater than those that may be statutorily conferred.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that, "judgments rendered by a Court are not liable to be read or understood as Euclid’s theorem. Judgments of a Court should also not be interpreted as mandating authorities to act contrary to a statute or to exercise powers far greater than those that may be statutorily conferred."

Counsel Kumar Visalaskh, along with others, appeared for the appellants, while ASC Rajeev Aggarwal appeared for the respondent.

In this case, the appeal was directed against the order dated 06 December 2022 passed by the Delhi Value Added Tax, Appellate Tribunal, affirming the imposition of penalty upon the appellant.

The appellant questioned the order, asserting that the Tribunal had not only misconstrued the earlier orders of remit as framed by the High Court, but it had also proceeded in complete ignorance of the ambit of the penalty provision, namely, Section 86 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

The Court observed that the levy of the penalty is undoubtedly governed by the provisions of Section 86 of the Act, and that the earlier orders could not possibly be construed as enabling the respondents to levy a penalty even though the pre-conditions as statutorily placed by sub-sections (10), (14) & (15) of Section 86 were not attracted.

It was further observed that accepting the arguments of the respondents would compel the Court to "construe the aforesaid decision as intending to empower the respondents to levy a penalty even though the same may not find sanction under the provisions of the Act."

Therefore, it was held that the previous order did not detract from the right of the appellant to question the very basis for the invocation of the penalty provisions.

In light of the same, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax

Click here to read/download the Judgment