Span Air Private Limited vs. Goverment Of Nct Of Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Office Of The GST Officer & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Span Air Private Limited, challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act and DGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The impugned order was issued on the last day of the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the order was unreasoned and failed to consider their reply to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2023. The respondents, represented by the Government of NCT of Delhi and the GST Officer, conceded that the issue was covered by previous High Court orders in similar matters and agreed to dispose of the present petition based on those statements.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act and DGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, was unreasoned and did not consider the reply furnished by the petitioner. The Court noted the submission of the respondents' counsel that the issue was covered by previous orders of the High Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass an appropriate order expeditiously, within six months from the date of the order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act and DGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, is liable to be set aside for being unreasoned and failing to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned and did not take into account the reply submitted by them to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2023. They relied on the principle that any order passed without proper consideration of the assessee's response would be invalid. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, fairly submitted that the issue was covered by previous orders of this Court in connected matters. They agreed that the present petition could be disposed of by accepting the statements made in those prior petitions, implying an acceptance of the petitioner's grievance regarding the unreasoned order.