Sarens Heavy Lift INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Dgst & Ors.
Held
The Court held that the impugned final order dated August 25, 2024, was unsustainable and liable to be set aside on the short ground that it was wholly unreasoned. The Court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had adopted a template approach, using identical phraseology to describe the petitioner's reply as "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous," which demonstrated an abject non-application of mind. This mirrored the reasoning in previous judgments of the Court, including Xerox India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. The respondents were given the liberty to proceed further in terms of the earlier SCN, bearing in mind the reply submitted by the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open.
Facts
The petitioner, Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited, is challenging a final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, DGST, under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order finalized a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated May 30, 2024, concerning the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the SCN on June 12, 2024. However, the Assistant Commissioner, in its final order, stated that the petitioner failed to attend the personal hearing and found the reply to be "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous," leading to the confirmation of the demand proposed in the SCN.
Key Issues
1. Whether the final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, DGST, under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid and reasoned, considering the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the final order is unreasoned and exhibits a non-application of mind by the authority. They rely on previous judgments of this Court, specifically Xerox India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner and Indian Highways Management Company Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., where similar orders, using identical phraseology to dismiss replies as "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous," were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final order referable to Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“Act”] which has come to be passed and in terms of which a Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] dated 30 May 2024 pertaining to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 has come to be finalized.
From the record, we gather that on receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had furnished a detailed reply on 12 June 2024. However and on consideration thereof, all that the Assistant Commissioner has chosen to observe is as follows: - “In view of the above, as the taxpayer has failed to attend the personal hearing d
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.
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.