Gsr Infocom PVT. LTD. vs. Goods And Services Tax Officer Ward 103 Delhi & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, GSR Infocom Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 26, 2023, passed by the Goods and Services Tax Officer, Ward 103, Delhi, and a show cause notice (SCN) dated September 23, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner's grievance was that the Respondent had re-opened proceedings for the period July 2017 to March 2018, despite an earlier SCN for the same period being dropped by the Respondent on September 11, 2023. The Respondent contended that the current SCN was based on different grounds, namely, under-declaration of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) and excess claim on ITC, whereas the earlier SCN was for incorrect tax liability declaration and wrongful availing of ITC through cancelled dealers. The Petitioner also failed to disclose that an appeal had been filed against the impugned order.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the first issue, while the Respondent argued the grounds for the SCN were different, the Court did not delve into the merits of whether the proceedings could be re-opened. Instead, the Court focused on the Petitioner's conduct. The Court found that the Petitioner's failure to disclose the filing of an appeal against the impugned order was a significant omission that went to the root of the matter. The Court emphasized the importance of parties placing all relevant documents, including attachments to orders, before the Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, granting the Petitioner liberty to pursue its appellate remedy. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 5000/- on the Petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association, and directed that the appeal would be heard subject to proof of cost deposit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Respondent could issue a fresh show cause notice and pass an order for the period July 2017 to March 2018 when an earlier show cause notice for the same period was dropped by the Respondent? 2. Whether the Petitioner's failure to disclose the filing of an appeal against the impugned order in the writ petition warrants dismissal of the petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent could not re-open proceedings for the same period after an earlier show cause notice was dropped. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondent argued that the current show cause notice was issued on different grounds (under-declaration of ineligible ITC, excess claim on ITC) compared to the earlier dropped notice (incorrect tax liability declaration, wrongful availing of ITC through cancelled dealers). The Respondent also submitted an 'Attachment to the Summary of the Order' indicating that the Petitioner's reply to the SCN was considered and found to be devoid of merits. The Respondent highlighted the Petitioner's non-disclosure of the pending appeal against the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 21.04.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- GSR Infocom Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 26th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by Respondent No. 1- Office of Sales Tax Officer Class II / AVATO, Ward 103, Zone 9, Delhi (hereinafter, the ‘Respondent No. 1-Department’).
Further, the petition also challenges the show cause notice dated 23rd September, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) issued by the Respondent No. 1- Department u/s 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) which led to the passing of the subsequent impugned order.
The grievance of the petitioner is that an earlier show cause notice dated 19th June, 2023 had been issued upon the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1- Department for the same period i.e. July, 2017 to March, 2018, which had 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 01/07/2025 at 23:07:04
been subsequently dropped vide order dated 11th September, 2023 passed by Respondent No.1-Department.
It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the proceedings qua the same period could not have been re-opened by Respondent No.1-Department.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Department who has appeared upon advance service submits that even though the earlier show cause notice dated 19th June, 2023 is for the same period, it was issued to the Petitioner on the ground of incorrect declaration of tax liability, wrongful availing of ITC through cancelled dealers. On the other hand, the present SCN has been issued on the ground of under declaration of ineligible ITC, excess claim on ITC and on certain other grounds.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1-Department has also placed before this Court the ‘Attachment to the Summary of the Order’ which has been issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD. The same is taken on record. The said document would show that the reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN has also been duly considered before passing the Impugned Order. Relevant portion of the same is extracted herein below: “And whereas, on examination of the reply/documents furnished by the taxpayer, it has been observed that since the reply is devoid of merits without any justification or proper reconciliation, the demand raised in SCN/DRC-01 is hereby upheld alongwith penalty.”
At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has also filed an appeal against the impugned order. However, this fact has not been disclosed by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.
In opinion of this Court, in such cases, the attachments which are issued 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 01/07/2025 at 23:07:04
by the concerned Department along with the orders passed by them ought to be placed on record by the parties so that the Court can appreciate the stand of both the parties. Moreover, the non-disclosure of the fact that an appeal has also been filed against the impugned order goes to the root of the matter. The petitioner has failed to disclose the said fact as well.
In these circumstances, the present petition is dismissed, permitting the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedy.
However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, costs of Rs.5000/- are imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar Association within one week. The details of the same are as under: Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association Account No.: 15530100000478 IFSC: UCBA0001553 Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. The appeal shall be heard by the Appellate Authority subject to proof of deposit of the costs as directed, being furnished to the Authority. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. APRIL 21, 2025/PB/ss 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 01/07/2025 at 23:07:04
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.