Dish Tv INDIA LTD. Through Its Authorized Representative vs. GST Officer, Ward-209, New Delhi And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an order raising a GST demand including penalty. The petitioner argued that the impugned order did not consider their detailed replies and supporting documents submitted in response to the show cause notice.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the detailed replies filed by the petitioner. The Proper Officer had merely stated that no proper reply was received without applying their mind to the submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the GST demand order properly considered the taxpayer's replies to the show cause notice and followed principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) oner impugns order dated 30.12.20 how Cause Notice dated 30.09.2023, p T NEW DELHI ecision: 16.04.2024 024 & CM APPL. S AUTHORIZED ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents bya Prashant Singh Advocates. ASC with Ms. war, Mr. Prateek hi Vats, Advocates with Mr. Subham otia, Advocates for VA A 023, whereby the proposing a demand W.P. (C) 5475/2 of Rs.77,80,6 demand inclu order has be Services Tax
Issue n for responden final disposa
Learne detailed rep impugned or replies subm
Perusa the Departm taxpayer has in compressi tax in compr availed and u detailed repl under each o
Impug Notice dated proper reply/ 2024 646.00 against the Petitioner has been uding penalty has been raised against een passed under Section 73 of the C x Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as th notice. Notice is accepted by learned nt. With the consent of the parties, peti al today. ed counsel for Petitioner submits that lies dated 26.10.2023 and 06.11.20 rder dated 30.12.2023 does not take int mitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic o al of the Show Cause Notice dated 30. ment has given reasons under sepa s availed the more ITC as mentioned a ion to the ITC available in GSTR-2A ression GSTR-1; and input tax credit utilized by the taxpayer. To the said S lies were furnished by the petitioner f the heads. gned order dated 30.12.2023 issued d 30.09.2023, after recording the narrat /explanation has been uploaded by the n disposed of and a the Petitioner. The Central Goods and he Act). d counsel appearing ition is taken up for Petitioner had filed 023, however, the to consideration the order. 09.2023 shows that arate headings i.e., above in GSTR-3B A; short payment of t has been wrongly Show Cause Notice, giving disclosures d on Show Cause tion records that no e taxpayer. It states W.P. (C) 5475/2 “And wherea Tax/Interest explanation stipulated tim explain Tax Officer on th submit reply for Personal Act, was als through the have been re opportunities the matter.”
The reply/explana
The ob sustainable f 06.11.2023 f supporting d replies on me proper reply/ dealing with not applied h 2024 as, it is noticed that the Taxpayer ha amount through DRC-03 or prov regarding non-deposit of the Tax/Inte me.And whereas, the Taxpayer was allo deficiencies during Personal Hear he given date and time, Further, ano and observing Principles of natural j l Hearing, as per provision of Section so provided to the taxpayer by issu GST portal. Now, since no proper r eceived from the Taxpayer despite suff s, which indicate that the Taxpayer ha Proper Officer has opined that ation has been received from the taxpay bservation in the impugned order dated
for the reasons that the replies date filed by the Petitioner are detailed documents. Proper Officer had to at erit and then form an opinion. He mere /explanation has been received from th the same, which ex-facie shows that his mind to the replies submitted by the as failed to deposit vide any plausible erest amount within owed opportunity to ring before Proper ther opportunity to justice, opportunity 75(4) CGST/DGST ing “REMINDER” reply / explanation ficient and repeated as nothing to say in that no proper yer. d 30.12.2023 is not ed 26.10.2023 and replies along with least consider the ely held that that no he taxpayer, without Proper Officer has e petitioner. W.P. (C) 5475/2
Furthe details were from the Peti opportunity w further docum
In vie cannot be su Proper Offic dated 30.12.2 Officer for re
Petitio within a peri shall re-adjud of personal accordance w of the Act.
It is commented rights and co
The ch initial extens 2024 er, if the Proper Officer was of the vie required, the same could have been itioner. However, the record does not r was given to the Petitioner to clarify ments/details. ew of the above, the impugned order ustained, and the matter is liable to cer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, t 2023 is set aside and the matter is rem e-adjudication. oner may file a further reply to the S iod of 30 days from today. Thereafter, dicate the Show Cause Notice after giv hearing and shall pass a fresh with law within the period prescribed u clarified that this Court has neith upon the merits of the contentions o ontentions of parties are reserved. hallenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 sion of time is left open. ew that any further specifically sought reflect that any such its reply or furnish r dated 30.12.2023 be remitted to the the impugned order mitted to the Proper Show Cause Notice , the Proper Officer ving an opportunity speaking order in under Section 75 (3) her considered nor of either party. All 3 with regard to the W.P. (C) 5475/2
Petitio APRIL 16, 2 RM 2024 on is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEE RAVIN 2024 EV SACHDEVA, J NDER DUDEJA, J
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.