Worlds Window Exim Private Limited vs. Commissioner Of State Tax Delhi & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act concerning discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned and did not address their contentions.
Held
The Court found the impugned order to be ex facie unreasoned and liable to be set aside. The respondents conceded that the order could be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act was reasoned and dealt with the petitioner's contentions. Whether a proper opportunity of hearing was afforded.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice.
The petitioner impugns an order dated 28.12.2023, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act) / Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter DGST Act) in respect of the tax period from July, 2017 to March 2018. The said order was passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 14.01.2021 (hereafter the impugned SCN). The petitioner was called upon to reply to the impugned SCN on or before 15.02.2021. A tabular statement set out in the said impugned SCN indicates that no date, time or venue of the personal hearing 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 07/09/2024 at 14:34:07
was fixed. The said impugned SCN was premised on the basis that there were certain discrepancies in the input tax credit (hereafter ITC) to the extent of ₹299.84 Lacs as seen in GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The petitioner was, therefore, required to explain reasons for the same.
The impugned SCN proposed an aggregate demand of ₹8,13,96,466/- which also included interest and penalty.
The petitioner states that although it did not file a reply to the impugned SCN on or before the stipulated date, it did so on 13.12.2023. 6. The petitioner states that it also received a notice fixing a personal hearing on 14.12.2023 and the petitioner availed the said opportunity by filing the reply to the impugned SCN.
It is the petitioner’s case that there were in fact no discrepancies in the ITC as reflected in the returns GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B as alleged.
Undisputedly, the impugned order does not deal with the petitioner’s contentions. The petitioner’s reply was rejected summarily by stating that it was found to be devoid of merits. The impugned order is ex facie unreasoned and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh. The Adjudicating Authority shall pass a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 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 07/09/2024 at 14:34:07
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 05, 2024/cl
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 07/09/2024 at 14:34:07
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.