M/S Aaa Impex vs. Commissioner Of State GST And Vat Department Of Trade And Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, M/s AAA Impex, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated December 17, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act. This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 35,52,662/-. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not signed and therefore invalid. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 19, 2023, which preceded the order, was also erroneous and unsigned. The SCN alleged excess ITC claim, but a tabular statement within it showed no difference between ITC claimed and ITC accrued. The respondent's counsel acknowledged the issues and agreed to set aside the order and remand the matter.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated December 17, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, was to be set aside. The Court also noted the petitioner's contention that the order was not signed, rendering it non est. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's arguments regarding the erroneous and unsigned nature of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 19, 2023, including the discrepancy in the ITC claim as per the tabular statement. In light of the respondent's concession, the Court decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The adjudicating authority is directed to pass a speaking order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The petition was disposed of in terms of this remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 17, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/DGST Act, is invalid due to being unsigned, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 19, 2023, is ex facie erroneous and invalid for being unsigned and containing contradictory information regarding the alleged excess ITC claim, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was non est because it was not signed. Additionally, the petitioner submitted that the SCN was also erroneous and unsigned. Specifically, the petitioner pointed out that the tabular statement in the SCN indicated no difference in ITC claimed versus ITC accrued, contradicting the allegation of excess ITC claim. The petitioner relied on the principle that unsigned orders are invalid. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.