Thales INDIA Private Limited vs. Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi North Commissionerate & Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Thales India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging five Orders-in-Appeals passed by the Appellate Authority. These appellate orders were in response to five separate orders issued by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority failed to consider Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021. Additionally, it was argued that the Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities did not consider the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s Earnst and Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals II, Delhi & Anr. The revenue did not present any arguments.
Held
The Court noted that the Appellate Authority prima facie appeared to have not considered Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST. It also appeared that the Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities had not considered the decision of this Court in M/s Earnst and Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals II, Delhi & Anr. However, the Court observed that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Goods & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which has become functional. Therefore, the Court did not consider it appropriate to entertain the present writ petition and disposed of it, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedies in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred by not considering Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021, which pertains to the treatment of corporate veil and controlling interests, in its impugned orders. The petitioner argued that this circular was relevant to the determination of the case. 2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to consider the binding precedent of this Court in M/s Earnst and Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals II, Delhi & Anr. The petitioner contended that this judgment was directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The revenue did not present any arguments.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 06.08.2024
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Order-in- Appeals (five in numbers) passed by the Appellate Authority. The said orders were passed in five separate appeals preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 in respect of five separate orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Prima facie, it appears that the Appellate Authority has not considered the Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021. 2. In view of the above, the view of the Appellate Authority that if the corporate veil is lifted, the controlling interest is with single entity is unmerited. It also appears that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority have not considered the decision of this Court in M/s Earnst and Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Appeals II, Delhi &
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.