Brilliant Metals PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Dgst
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated May 20, 2022, is set aside. This decision was based on the reasoning that a similar adjudication order in another writ petition was quashed on the same day due to the provisions of a Circular dated September 20, 2022, issued by the respondent/revenue, a stance not disputed by the revenue's counsel. The Court directed that the concerned officer would commence proceedings de novo, implying a fresh show-cause notice would be issued by a proper officer, taking into account the Circular dated September 20, 2022. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise issues concerning jurisdiction before the concerned adjudicating authority, and the adjudicating officer was directed to consider Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, among other provisions. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated May 20, 2022, which stemmed from a show-cause notice dated February 8, 2022. The petitioner sought relief confined to this adjudication order. The respondent is the Commissioner of DGST. The court noted that in a similar writ petition decided on the same day, an adjudication order was quashed based on a Circular dated September 20, 2022, issued by the revenue. The revenue's counsel did not dispute that the present matter would have the same outcome. The revenue also indicated that other issues within the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction could be raised before it.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated May 20, 2022, should be quashed in light of the Circular dated September 20, 2022, issued by the respondent/revenue? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order should be quashed, aligning with the court's decision in a similar case decided on the same day, which relied on the aforementioned Circular. The petitioner also raised an issue concerning jurisdiction, referring to Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Revenue's contention: The respondent/revenue did not dispute that the present matter would have the same fate as the similar case. They also stated that any other issues within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority could be raised before it.
Sections Cited
Section 6(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2022/DHC/004306
W.P.(C)No.12531/2022 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of Decision: 26.09.2022 + W.P.(C) 12531/2022 & CM APPLs. 37941/2022 & 37942/2022
BRILLIANT METALS PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner Through: Mr Rajesh Jain with Mr Virag Tiwari, Mr Ramashish and Mr K.J. Bhatt, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF DGST
..... Respondent Through: Mr Satyakam with Mr Alok Raj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM APPL. 37942/2022
Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 12531/2022 & CM APPL. 37941/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
Although there are several prayers made in the writ petition, Mr Rajesh Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, for the moment, the relief sought is confined to prayer clause (a), i.e., against adjudication order dated 20.05.202
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.