M/S. Snar Homes Developer vs. Goods And Service Tax Officer, Ward-110, Zone-12, Dgst & Anr.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. SNAR Homes Developer, is challenging a final order dated August 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Goods and Service Tax Officer. The proceedings began with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on May 21, 2024, requiring a reply by June 21, 2024. The petitioner admits not filing a reply by this date. However, a subsequent notice dated July 23, 2024, from the Sales Tax Officer extended the deadline for filing a reply to August 1, 2024. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on July 26, 2024, within this extended period. Despite this, the impugned order was passed on the premise that no reply had been filed, failing to consider the petitioner's submission.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated August 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, could not be sustained. The reasoning was that the order was passed on the incorrect premise that the writ petitioner had not filed any reply. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed a detailed reply on July 26, 2024, after the Sales Tax Officer had extended the time for submission to August 1, 2024. Therefore, the final order failed to take into consideration the petitioner's response. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider all submissions made by assessees, especially when filed within an extended period granted by the authority itself, before passing an order. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the Sales Tax Officer to pass a fresh order, taking into account the petitioner's reply and proceeding in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the final order dated August 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable when it was passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner on July 26, 2024, within the extended timeline provided by the respondent. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is liable to be quashed because it was passed without considering their detailed reply, which was submitted on July 26, 2024, pursuant to a notice from the Sales Tax Officer extending the reply deadline to August 1, 2024. They contended that the order erroneously stated that no reply was filed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
The petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 09 August 2024 purported to have been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act”].
The proceedings themselves had commenced pursuant to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] on 21 May 2024 and which had required the writ petitioner to furnish a response by 21 June 2024. Admittedly, no reply was filed by the assesee prior to the last date so prescribed.
Our attention, however, has been drawn to a subsequent notice/ reminder dated 23 July 2024 in terms of which the Sales Tax Officer itself had extended time for furnishing a reply upto 01 August 2024. I
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.