Cyber Media (INDIA) Limited vs. Goods And Service Tax Officer (Gsto), Ward 96 & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Cyber Media (India) Limited, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated April 26, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were generic, cobbled together from common passages, and showed a palpable non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. Specifically, the authority had allegedly not examined the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and had even failed to change the font of copied passages, indicating a lack of personalized consideration. The respondent GST Officer (GSTO) acknowledged these concerns and agreed to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated April 26, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act/CGST Act, were liable to be set aside due to a palpable non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. The Court noted that the orders appeared to be 'cobbled together' from common passages and that the adjudicating authority had not examined the reply filed by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice. The observation that the font of certain passages was not even changed to match the rest of the order further underscored the lack of personalized consideration. The Court accepted the respondent's submission that the matter could be remanded for fresh consideration. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass an informed decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated April 26, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act/CGST Act, demonstrate a non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority, rendering them liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority failed to apply its mind to the specific facts and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice. The orders were allegedly generic, containing identical passages from other orders, even with inconsistent font usage, indicating a mechanical and unreasoned decision-making process. This failure to conduct a proper adjudication process, as mandated by law, was the primary ground for challenge. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the non-application of mind. Instead, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the concerned authorities were examining the issue and intended to sensitize adjudicating authorities. The respondent agreed to the matter being remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration.