M/S. Dinodia Fashions Through Its Prop. Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Dinodia Fashions, through its proprietor Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 20.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act), for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unreasoned and that the adjudicating authority had failed to consider their response. The respondent, Union of India and others, through their counsel, conceded that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act for the financial year 2018-19, was liable to be set aside. The Court accepted the respondent's submission that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the order was unreasoned and that their response had not been considered. The respondent's concession further supported this conclusion. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudicating authority must pass a reasoned order and consider the response of the assessee before passing an order under Section 73 of the DGST Act. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider it afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The adjudicating authority was requested to complete the proceedings within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act for the financial year 2018-19, is liable to be set aside on the grounds that it is unreasoned and failed to consider the petitioner's response? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unsustainable because it was unreasoned and did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's submitted response to the show cause notice. This failure to apply its mind to the petitioner's contentions rendered the order arbitrary and legally flawed. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, Union of India and others, through their counsel, fairly stated, on instructions, that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh. They did not contest the petitioner's assertion regarding the lack of reasoning or consideration.