Sparkin Sunlit Private Limited Through Its Director Nakul Bhardwaj (2017- 2018) vs. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Sparkin Sunlit Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 27/09/2023 and a Demand Order dated 28/12/2023, both issued under the CGST/DGST Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that these orders were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to file a further affidavit to support their claim of not being served with the Demand Order dated 28 December 2023. In their additional affidavit, the petitioner stated they became aware of the impugned demand order in September 2024 while preparing financial year 2023-24 accounts, when the person examining the books discovered the order.

Held

The Court found no justification to entertain the writ petition based on the petitioner's averments regarding service of the Demand Order dated 28 December 2023. The petitioner's additional affidavit stated they became aware of the order in September 2024 while preparing accounts, which the Court deemed insufficient to entertain the writ petition. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claim of discovering the order during account preparation did not establish a basis for judicial review through a writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy when the petitioner's own account of awareness of the impugned order does not demonstrate a clear violation of statutory procedures or principles of natural justice that warrants extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioners to adopt appropriate statutory remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the Demand Order dated 28 December 2023, and if not, whether this constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the order under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they were not served with the Demand Order dated 28 December 2023, and their discovery of it in September 2024 during account preparation indicates a lack of proper service, violating natural justice. They sought to set aside the Show Cause Notice and Demand Order on this ground. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities regarding the service of the Demand Order or any counter-arguments to the petitioner's claims.