Archit Khandelwal Proprietor Archit Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.

Held

The Court found that the final adjudication order dated August 28, 2024, failed to adequately engage with the reply submitted by the writ petitioner. The order merely stated that the reply was "not found to be satisfactory" without providing any reasons or engaging with the substance of the petitioner's submissions. The Court held that such a perfunctory rejection of the petitioner's response, without disclosing reasons for the ultimate conclusions, rendered the order unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court explicitly left open the challenge to Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 for determination in appropriate future proceedings. The Court allowed the writ petition on the grounds of procedural deficiency in the adjudication process.

Facts

The petitioner, Archit Khandelwal, proprietor of Archit Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated August 28, 2024, and the preceding show cause notice (DRC-01) dated May 14, 2024, pertaining to the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner sought to declare these orders barred by limitation and to quash them. The petitioner also challenged Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023, which extended the time period for Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for the year 2019-20, arguing they conflicted with Section 168A of the CGST Act. The Goods & Services Tax Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act. The petitioner filed a reply, which the officer found unsatisfactory, leading to the final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated August 28, 2024, and the show cause notice dated May 14, 2024, for the tax period 2019-20 are barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act? 2. Whether Notifications No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated March 31, 2023, and No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, which extended the time period for Section 73(10) for the year 2019-20, are contrary to and in conflict with Section 168A of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order and show cause notice were barred by limitation. They contended that the aforementioned notifications, by extending the time period for Section 73(10), contravened Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioner relied on the principle that statutory provisions must be followed and that notifications cannot override or conflict with the Act itself. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the limitation period or the validity of the notifications. However, the revenue's actions, as reflected in the adjudication order, indicate their stance that the proceedings were validly initiated and concluded.