Delhi Soccer PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Delhi Soccer Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 19.12.2023, which disposed of a show cause notice dated 22.09.2023 and imposed a demand of Rs. 10,99,32,156.00, including penalty, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that they were under the impression that proceedings under Section 73 were closed because prior proceedings under Section 61 of the Act had culminated with the acceptance of their justifications via Form GST ASMT-12. Consequently, the petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice. The revenue, Union of India & Ors., did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case that they were under the impression that proceedings under Section 73 of the Act had been closed due to the conclusion of proceedings under Section 61. This impression led to the petitioner not filing a reply. Given these peculiar facts, the Court decided that the petitioner should be granted one opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within four weeks, after which the Proper Officer would re-adjudicate after providing a personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party, and all rights and contentions were reserved. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time was left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to a bona fide belief that prior proceedings under Section 61 of the Act had concluded the matter. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they did not file a reply to the show cause notice under Section 73 because proceedings under Section 61 had already concluded with the acceptance of their justifications, leading them to believe no further action would be taken. They sought an opportunity to file a reply. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.