M/S Mittal Impex vs. Commissioner Of SGST. Delhi & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mittal Impex, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. This order was issued under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The order stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.09.2023, which alleged that the petitioner had claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner had responded to the SCN on 23.12.2023, submitting invoices and ledger accounts. However, the impugned order did not appear to consider the petitioner's response, stating it was vague and failed to counter the demand, and incorrectly claimed no supporting documents were filed.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, was prima facie unreasoned as it did not address the contentions advanced by the petitioner or consider the documents submitted in response to the Show Cause Notice. The Court noted the respondent's fair concession that the order should be set aside and remanded. The Court agreed with this submission. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to file any further relevant documents within two weeks. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudicating authority must pass a reasoned order that addresses the contentions and evidence presented by the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act, is a reasoned order, considering the petitioner's response and submitted documents? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned and failed to address their contentions and the documents submitted in response to the SCN. They contended that the Adjudicating Authority had not properly considered their reply. The revenue, through the learned counsel for the respondent, conceded that the impugned order may be set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The revenue also agreed to provide the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, even though the petitioner had initially indicated they did not wish to avail one.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 23.07.2024
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 29.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 / Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act / DGST Act) for the tax period – July, 2017 to March, 2018. 2. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2023 (hereafter the SCN) whereby it was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner has claimed excess Input Tax Credit (hereafter ITC). The petitioner responded to the SCN by a letter dated 23.12.2023. The petitioner also filed documents such as invoices and ledger accounts in support of its response to the SCN.
The impugned order does not indicate that the response filed the petitioner was considered by the Adjudicating Authority, it merely states that the petitioner’s reply was found to be vague and it miserably failed to counter the demand raised. Additionally, the impugned order states that no invoices / certificates / payment proof were attached in support of the claim of excess 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 03/07/2025 at 19:40:55
ITC.
A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the same is prima facie unreasoned as it does not address any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly states that the impugned order may be set aside and the present petition be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh. He further states that although the petitioner, in response to the SCN, indicated that it does not wish to avail any personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority would also afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The aforesaid contention commends to this Court.
In view of the above, this Court remands the present petition to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh. The petitioner is also at liberty to file such other documents as it considers relevant within a period of two weeks from date.
The Adjudicating Authority shall pass a reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 23, 2024 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 03/07/2025 at 19:40:55
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.