M/S Ua INDIA Sourcing LLP vs. Commissioner Of CGST Delhi South And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s UA INDIA SOURCING LLP, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 9, 2025, issued by the Commissioner of CGST Delhi South and others. The impugned order raised a demand of Rs. 1,57,81,899/- against the Petitioner. The Petitioner claimed this amount had already been paid, citing two ARN numbers (AD070919000677O and AD070919000673W) reflected on the GST portal. The Department stated that verification of these ARNs yielded a 'no record found' remark and that the Petitioner had not provided other proof of payment. The Court noted the Petitioner's inability to provide a satisfactory explanation or bank statements to substantiate the payment claim. It was also submitted that the amount was deposited by the Petitioner's Chartered Accountant from his personal account.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner had not sufficiently substantiated their claim of having paid the disputed amount of Rs. 1,57,81,899/-. The Petitioner's reliance on the ARN numbers was found insufficient by the Department, and the Petitioner failed to provide satisfactory proof, such as bank statements, to demonstrate the payment. The Court reasoned that to challenge the impugned order, the Petitioner needed to satisfy the appellate authority regarding the payment. Therefore, the Court directed the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. This appeal must be filed after making the requisite pre-deposit as mandated under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to file the appeal within 30 days from the date of the order, and if filed within this period, it shall not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner has discharged their burden of proof regarding the payment of Rs. 1,57,81,899/-, as required under the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to challenge the impugned demand order? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the payment was made and reflected on the GST portal under specific ARN numbers. They relied on the existence of these ARNs as evidence of payment. Revenue's Contention: The Department contended that verification of the provided ARN numbers resulted in 'no record found' and that the Petitioner failed to provide any other documentary evidence, such as bank statements, to substantiate the claimed payment. The Department's stance was that the Petitioner had not sufficiently proven the payment.
Sections Cited
Section 107(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 22.04.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. W.P.(C) 5112/2025 & CM APPL. 23365/2025 (for interim relief)
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 9th January, 2025, where a demand of tax to the tune of Rs.1,57,81,899/- has been raised against Petitioner.
The case of the Petitioner is that the said amount had already been paid by the Petitioner which is reflected in the GST portal under two ARN numbers namely AD070919000677O and AD070919000673W.
The submission on behalf of the Respondents (hereinafter collectively ‘the Department’) is that insofar as the two ARN numbers are concerned, the Department has tried to verify the payment, however, the remark that comes up is ‘no record found’. Other than the said ARNs the Petitioner has not provided any proof to substantiate his claim of the amount being paid. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:26:29
Today, the Court had queried the Petitioner as to why a bank statement is not being placed on record showing the payment of the amount to which there is no satisfactory reply.
In view thereof, let the Petitioner challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal after making the requisite pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and satisfy the appellate authority in respect of the payment which is stated to have been made by the Petitioner.
At this stage, it is submitted that the amount was deposited by the Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant from his own bank account.
The present writ petition has been disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days. If the appeal is filed within a period of 30 days the same shall not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. APRIL 22, 2025/PB/Ar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:26:29
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.