M/S M.P. Electricals vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 63 & Ors.

W.P.(C)/9567/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01040581202418 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA2 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. Pulkit Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASC for R-1 and 4. Mr. Ramkumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr. SC along with Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advs. for R-3

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.P. Electricals, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63 (respondent no.1). This order, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 / DGST Act, 2017, raised a demand of Rs.6,21,272/- towards tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, through their counsel, informed the Court that a rectification order dated 16.07.2024 had been passed, reducing the demand to NIL. A copy of this rectification order was submitted and taken on record. Consequently, the original impugned order was rendered infructuous.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents' counsel had instructions to concede to the petitioner's prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024. This concession was based on the fact that a rectification order dated 16.07.2024 had been issued, which reduced the aggregate demand raised in the original order to NIL. As the rectification order rendered the original demand order infructuous, the Court found no reason to proceed with the challenge to the initial order. The petition was disposed of in light of the subsequent rectification. The ratio decidendi is that a subsequent rectification order that nullifies the demand raised in an impugned order leads to the disposal of the challenge to the original order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 / DGST Act, 2017, raising a demand of Rs.6,21,272/-, is sustainable in light of a subsequent rectification order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner challenged the initial demand order. (No specific arguments recorded as the matter was conceded). Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the respondents conceded to the prayer for setting aside the impugned order, stating that a rectification order dated 16.07.2024 had been passed, reducing the demand to NIL. Therefore, the impugned order no longer survived.

Sections Cited

Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9567/2024 and CM APPL.39245/2024 (Stay) M/S M.P. ELECTRICALS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Adv. versus SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 63 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASC for R-1 and 4. Mr. Ramkumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr. SC along with Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 18.07.2024

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the respondent no.1, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) / Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act, 2017), raising an aggregate demand of Rs.6,21,272/- on account of tax, interest and penalty.

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that he has instructions to concede to the prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, since a rectification order dated 16.07.2024 has been passe

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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.