Dinesh Kumar Varma vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 93 Zone 8 Delhi
Facts
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Varma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order adjudicated a show cause notice dated 21.09.2023 and created a demand of Rs. 15,53,240/-. The petitioner claimed ignorance of this notice. He also became aware of another order dated 17.12.2023, which adjudicated a show cause notice dated 24.09.2023 for the same tax period (July 2017 to March 2018) and created a similar demand of Rs. 15,53,234/-. Both show cause notices and subsequent orders originated from different officers within the same jurisdictional office (AVATO, Ward-93, Zone-B, Delhi) and pertained to the identical tax period, raising nearly identical demands.
Held
The Court held that the existence of two separate show cause notices and adjudication orders, issued by different officers of the same jurisdictional office for the same tax period (July 2017 to March 2018) and raising nearly identical demands, was irregular. Consequently, both orders dated 17.12.2023 and 25.12.2023 were set aside. The proceedings initiated by the show cause notices dated 21.09.2023 and 24.09.2023 were clubbed and directed to be re-adjudicated by a single proper officer. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a reply to both show cause notices, after which the proper officer was to adjudicate within the period prescribed by Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not considered or commented on the merits of either party's contentions, reserving all rights and contentions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the two separate show cause notices and subsequent adjudication orders, issued by different officers of the same jurisdictional office for the same tax period (July 2017 to March 2018) and raising identical demands, are valid in law? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the show cause notices, preventing him from filing a response. He highlighted the anomaly of two distinct proceedings for the same tax period and similar demands by different officers of the same ward. Respondent's contentions: Appearance was not given by the respondent, hence no arguments were recorded.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner impugns order dated 25.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act”], whereby a show cause notice dated 21.09.2023 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Class-II has been adjudicated and a demand of Rs. 15,53,240/- created against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware of the said show cause notice and as such, could
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.