BharatTaxGST

Maa Padmawati Lamination Through Its Proprietor Mr Ankur Jain vs. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/7347/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01030759202421 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner challenged an order demanding GST on alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim for FY 2018-2019. The petitioner claimed they filed a reply, but it was not considered by the Proper Officer.

Held

The Court found that the petitioner's reply and relevant GST forms (GSTR-2A) were not properly examined. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for re-adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether the Proper Officer properly considered the taxpayer's reply and supporting documents before passing an order on ITC claims? Whether the impugned order was passed without due application of mind?

Sections Cited

Section 75

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP (C) 7347/2024 Page 1 of 3 $~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21.05.2024 + W.P.(C) 7347/2024 MAA PADMAWATI LAMINATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR ANKUR JAIN ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parveen Kumar Gambhir, Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. Akul Mangla, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, ASC with Mr. Shubham Kumar, Mr. Naven Ahmed & Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocates CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner impugns order dated 15.03.2024, whereby, a demand has been created against the Petitioner on account of alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-2019. 2. The impugned order also records that no reply or explanation has been received from the taxpayer.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that reply was filed, WP (C) 7347/2024 though belated, on 10.03.2024, before the impugned order was passed. However, the same has not been even looked at by the Proper Officer.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it was categorically stated in the reply that Form GSTR-2A, GSTR-8A and GSTR-9, as available on the portal, clearly demonstrate that there was no excess claim of Input Tax Credit by the Petitioner and the Proper Officer has erred in not even looking at the same.

5.

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

6.

We have been taken through Form GSTR-2A, as available on the portal and from it prima facie appears that the same has not been carefully examined by the Proper Officer. In view thereof, we are of the view that the impugned order calls for a remit

7.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set aside. Show Cause Notice is restored on the file of the Proper Officer, who shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law after examining the reply filed by the Petitioner and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3) of the Act.

8.

It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All WP (C) 7347/2024 rights and contentions of parties are reserved.

9.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J MAY 20, 2024/RM

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.