M/S Aaa Impex Through Its Partner Mr. Rajeev Gupta vs. Commissioner Of State GST And Vat, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s AAA Impex, challenged a final order dated August 18, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of State GST and VAT, Delhi, under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner initially argued that no notice was served prior to the final order, contending it was placed in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The respondent, however, submitted a status report stating the notice was placed in the 'Notices and Orders' tab after portal corrections ensured all notices were under the principal tab. The petitioner then shifted their argument, asserting that the GST portal itself showed no differences in CGST, State GST, and Integrated GST, implying no basis for the tax demand.
Held
The Court did not definitively rule on the procedural correctness of notice service or the substantive validity of the tax demand based on portal discrepancies. Instead, the Court permitted the writ petitioner to file an application for rectification before the GST officer. This application should bring to the officer's attention the details regarding the alleged absence of differences in CGST, State GST, and Integrated GST as indicated by the GST portal. The officer is directed to independently ascertain and examine these details. If the petitioner's stand is found to be correct, the officer is to take appropriate action thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the final order dated August 18, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act is vitiated by a failure to properly serve notice on the petitioner? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the GST portal demonstrates the absence of any discrepancies in CGST, State GST, and Integrated GST, thereby invalidating the tax demand? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner initially contended that no proper notice was served, as it was allegedly placed in an 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. Subsequently, the petitioner argued that the GST portal itself indicated no differences in CGST, State GST, and Integrated GST, suggesting the tax demand was unfounded. The petitioner relied on the visual evidence from the GST portal. Revenue's arguments: The respondent argued that the notice preceding the final order was placed in the 'Notices and Orders' tab after corrective measures were taken on the portal, ensuring its visibility. The respondent's position was based on the status report submitted in the proceedings.
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 writ petitioner has impugned the final order dated 18 August 2024 referable to Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act”] and whereby the net tax payable as computed by the respondent appears to be based on a failure to reconcile the returns that were submitted.
When the writ petition was originally entertained, the petitioner had contended that prior to the passing of the final order, no notice had been served and that the same was perhaps placed in the „Additional Notices and Orders‟ tab.
However, and from the status report that has been submitted in these proceedings, we find that it is the case of the respondents that the notice which preceded the final order under Section 73 was placed 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 20:32:31
in the „Notices and Orders‟ tab since by that time appropriate corrective measures had been taken on the portal thus ensuring that all notices were placed under the principal tab and being viewable.
Faced with the above, learned counsel for the writ petitioner then drew our attention to the averments made in the writ petition in ground (E) and in terms of which it is contended that a perusal of the online Goods and Services Tax [“GST”] Portal itself would establish that no difference existed under the head of CGST, State GST and Integrated GST.
In view of the aforesaid position which is taken, we permit the writ petitioner to move an appropriate application for rectification bringing to the attention of the GST officer, the details which are alluded to and referred to hereinabove. The same may be duly ascertained and examined by the officer independently and in case the stand as struck is found to be correct, appropriate action may be taken thereafter.
The writ petition shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 15, 2025/DR/V
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 20:32:31
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.