Xerox INDIA Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, Ward 208(Zone -11)Dgst And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Xerox India Limited, is challenging a final order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on May 27, 2024, for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner submitted a reply, and the Assistant Commissioner issued reminders and considered adjournment requests. However, the final order stated that the petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing and that their reply was "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous." The petitioner contends that this order suffers from a non-application of mind.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner is wholly unreasoned and liable to be set aside. The Court observed that the Assistant Commissioner had adopted a template approach, using identical and generic language to describe the petitioner's reply as "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous." This practice, which the Court had previously cautioned against in similar matters, clearly exhibits an abject non-application of mind. The Court found that despite prior warnings, the officer had failed to make any amends. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court also directed that a copy of this order be placed before the Principal Commissioner for an appropriate review of the adjudication process. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed further in terms of the earlier SCN, bearing in mind the reply submitted by the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the final order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated by a non-application of mind, thereby rendering it unreasoned and liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner adopted a template response, using identical phraseology such as "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous" to dismiss their reply without proper consideration. This demonstrates a clear failure to apply independent thought and reasoning to the specific facts and submissions presented. The petitioner relies on the Court's previous observations in similar cases, specifically citing Indian Highways Management Company Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr. (W.P.(C) 15701/2024 dated 12 November 2024). Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents (Revenue).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 16 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172. 2. The aforesaid order was preceded by the issuance of a Show Cause Notice3 and pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted a detailed response. The Assistant Commissioner had thereafter proceeded to frame a final order which reads as follows: “The taxpayer M/s Xerox India Limited, GSTIN- 07AAACM8634RIZT was served upon a notice under section 73 of CGST/DGST Act, 2017 regarding (Voluntary Payment Intimation, if applicable) along with GST DRC-0l vide reference No. ZD0705240298761 (Summary of SCN) on 27.05.2024 for the period April-2019 to March-2020. In response to DRC-01 issued to the taxpayer u/s 73 of CGST/DGST Act, 2017 for the year 20I9-20, the taxpayer filed
2 Act 3 SCN 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 03/12/2024 at 10:26:17
reply through DRC-06. Observing the principle of natural justice reminder was issued on 12.07.2024. The taxpayer requested for adjournment on 24.07.2024, however, no sufficient cause as envisaged u/s 75(5) of the Act 2017 was mentioned in the adjournment request. Request of the taxpayer was considered and hearing was fixed on 01.08.2024. Further the taxpayer again requested for adjournment on 30.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 and two days time was sought for personal hearing, however, till date none has appeared in personal hearing to explain the issues mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. In view of the above, the taxpayer has failed to attend the personal hearing despite ample opportunity and after having gone through the reply filed by the taxpayer in r/o each point no explanation could be given in want of personal hearing by the taxpayer till date. The reply filed by the taxpayer is not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous. Therefore, the proposed demand mentioned in the Show Cause Notice is confirmed.”
We are constrained to observe that the order as passed follows lines identical to those which have come before us and have fallen for our notice on earlier occasions. The Assistant Commissioner has clearly adopted a template where the only reason assigned is that the reply filed was “not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous”. This clearly exhibits an abject non-application of Commissioner & Anr.4, we find that the officer has failed to make any amends.
Accordingly, while we are convinced that the impugned order
4 W.P.(C) 15701/2024 dated 12 November 2024 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 03/12/2024 at 10:26:17
being wholly unreasoned is liable to be set aside on this short score alone, we also require Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents to place a copy of this order before the Principal Commissioner concerned, so that an appropriate review of the manner in which such applications of assessees are adjudicated is undertaken.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. For reasons assigned above, the impugned order of 16 August 2024 is quashed and set aside. We leave it open to the respondents to proceed further in terms of the earlier SCN issued in accordance with law and bearing in mind the reply which had been submitted by the writ petitioner.
All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 28, 2024 Ch 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 03/12/2024 at 10:26:17
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.