Concord Hospitality Private Limited vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate, Jalandhar

Facts

The petitioner, Concord Hospitality Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 18, 2020 (Annexure P-5) imposing a demand of Rs. 2,05,73,213/-. The petitioner relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure P-10), dated December 23, 2022. This information, provided by the respondent department, indicated that certain orders (mentioned at serial numbers 1 to 6 in the RTI response) had been accepted by the department without being assailed in appeal. The petitioner claimed parity based on this information, asserting that no demand had been made against the companies in those specific instances after the orders were accepted. The respondent is the Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The primary issue revolved around the petitioner's claim for parity based on information obtained under the RTI Act. The Court perused the RTI application and the information provided by the department (Annexure P-10), which indicated that specific orders mentioned in the RTI response had been accepted by the department without being challenged in appeal, and no demand was raised thereafter. The Court found that the department did not dispute these facts. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar treatment. The order dated May 18, 2020 (Annexure P-5), imposing a demand of Rs. 2,05,73,213/-, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the competent authority/respondent to pass a fresh order, taking into account the information provided under the RTI Act (Annexure P-10). The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities must act consistently and cannot raise demands in cases where similar orders have been accepted without appeal, as evidenced by official information.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity with other companies whose orders were accepted by the department without appeal, as indicated by the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the information provided by the respondent department under the RTI Act, Annexure P-10, clearly shows that certain orders were accepted by the department and no demand was raised against those companies. Therefore, the petitioner should be treated similarly and granted parity. The petitioner relied on the principle of consistency and fairness in the application of tax laws. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue department. However, the court's decision implies that the department did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the RTI information.