Delhi High Court Dismisses 19-Year-Old Sales Tax Reference On Video Cassettes For Non-Prosecution

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 19-year-old sales tax reference concerning the tax classification of video cassettes for non-prosecution.

A division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain had earlier observed that with the advancement of technology, the issue may have become purely academic.

On Friday, the court dismissed the reference after observing that no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner-Casette Shoppe for several hearings.

"A perusal of the record reflects that the reference was received from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the year 2007. Nearly 19 years have passed since then. In view of the repeated non-appearance, this Court is not inclined to keep the reference pending any further. Accordingly, the reference is dismissed for non-prosecution," the Court ordered.

The reference had been received from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in 2007 under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, and pertained to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 (Local).

During the course of proceedings, the matter remained pending for several years with repeated adjournments. In July 2025, the High Court issued notice to the respondent and also directed that notice be served upon the Petitioner.

As the petitioner remained unrepresented and court notice was returned unserved with the endorsement that the petitioner did not exist at the given address, the Court appointed advocate Urvi Mohan as amicus curiae to assist it.

On July 9, 2026, the amicus submitted that the question involved was whether a video cassette is an accessory to, or an essential part of, a video cassette recorder (VCR).

The Court observed that with the advancement of technology, video cassette recorders had been out of use for a considerable period of time, and asked the Sales Tax Department to obtain instructions on whether the questions involved in the reference still required adjudication or had become "purely academic."

When the matter was taken up again on July 15, the court noted that despite its earlier direction, there was no representation on behalf of either party and adjourned the matter.

Finally, on July 31, observing that the Petitioner had remained absent on several dates and that nearly 19 years had elapsed since the reference was received, the Court dismissed the reference for non-prosecution.

For Respondent: Advocates Sumit K. Batra and Priyanka Jindal