M/S Avantha Holdings Limited vs. The Proper Officer GST Ward 208 Zone 11 New Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Avantha Holdings Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order was a consequence of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated January 30, 2024, which proposed an additional demand on account of 'unbilled revenue'. The petitioner had responded to the SCN, asserting that taxes and interest for the 'unbilled revenue' had already been paid and provided supporting details. However, the impugned order merely stated that the petitioner's reply was unacceptable due to being incomplete, inadequately supported by documents, or lacking proper justification, without elaborating further.

Held

The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority had not adequately considered the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. The impugned order, which merely stated that the reply was unacceptable for being incomplete, lacking adequate documentation, or without proper justification, failed to provide specific reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not provided any reasoning for its decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and may also call for necessary documents or material for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority, in passing the impugned order dated April 29, 2024, under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act and DGST Act, adequately considered and provided reasons for rejecting the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice dated January 30, 2024, concerning 'unbilled revenue'? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that its reply to the SCN, which included payment details for taxes and interest on 'unbilled revenue', was not properly considered by the Adjudicating Authority. They contended that the impugned order failed to provide specific reasons for rejecting their explanation, merely stating it was 'incomplete/not duly supported by adequate documents / without proper justification'. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Proper Officer GST Ward 208 Zone 11 New Delhi, accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent regarding the merits of the petitioner's reply or the Adjudicating Authority's reasoning.