Tek Xplore Through Its Proprietor Ms. Renuka Maini vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Tek Xplore, through its proprietor Ms. Renuka Maini, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.12.2023, which confirmed a demand raised against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 could not be filed due to the bereavement of the proprietor's husband. The Show Cause Notice raised a demand under Section 16(2)(c) and Section 17(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the demand was raised erroneously and that a duplicate demand was issued under both provisions. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the impugned order was cryptic and lacked reasoning. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file a reply and for the Show Cause Notice to be adjudicated afresh.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.12.2023 was a cryptic order without providing any details or reasoning. The Court noted that after narrating the recitals, the order merely stated that 'in view of above, there is no option but to proceed with the demands mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.' The Court found this to be an insufficient basis for confirming the demand. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within one week from the date of the order. Upon filing of the reply, the proper officer was directed to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice afresh within a period of four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The proper officer was also directed to pass a detailed speaking order. The petition was disposed of in these terms, reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.12.2023, which confirmed a demand against the petitioner, is valid, considering the petitioner's inability to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 due to personal bereavement. 2. Whether the demand raised under Section 16(2)(c) and Section 17(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is sustainable, and if a duplicate demand was raised. 3. Whether the impugned order is a cryptic order lacking proper reasoning and adjudication. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable as they were unable to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice due to a family bereavement. They also contended that the demand was wrongly raised and that a duplicate demand was issued under two different provisions of the GST Act. The petitioner further submitted that the order passed was cryptic and did not provide any reasons, thus violating principles of natural justice. They prayed for an opportunity to file a reply and for a fresh adjudication. Respondents' contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.