A B C Enterprises vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 102 & Ors.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order for dropping W.P.(C) 2543/2025 on 24/09/2023 (Anx-1) 30/11/2023 (Annx-1) 11/12/2023 proceedings issued after considering the reply (Anx- 4) 2018-19 DRC-01 has been issued on 10/12/2023 (Anx-2) - Reply Received on 07/02/2024 Order for dropping proceedings issued after considering the reply (Anx- 4) 2019-20 DRC-01 has been issued on 29/05/2024 (Anx-3) Reminder-1 issued on 23/07/2024 Reminder-2 issued on 11/08/2024 (Annx-3) No Reply Received Order for creation of demand on 24/08/2024 after receiving no-reply (Anx- 5)
The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the above table would show that the stand of the Department is that the automated email and the automated SMS on the registered mobile number of the taxpayer, i.e. Petitioner was sent for all three periods, i.e., 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019- 2020. However, only for the last year i.e. 2019-2020, the Petitioner’s case is that he did not receive any copy thereof. Thus, it is not possible to accept that the Petitioner did not receive the same.
For the previous years, .i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 the Petitioner has filed a reply and the proceedings have been dropped. Since the same process is stated to have been adopted, the Department cannot be disbelieved.
However, the stand of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner came to know of the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 only in January, 2025. The same can be noted in terms of paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 24th February W.P.(C) 2543/2025 2025 of the Petitioner which has been filed by the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is set out below:
“4. That, I became aware of the aforementioned notice and order dated 24.08.2024 only in the month of January 2025, when my accountant apprised me about the ex-parte proceedings reflecting under the 'Additional Notices' head on the GST Portal.”
Under these circumstances, instead of permitting the matter to proceed in default, since the Petitioner has categorically stated that it did not receive the notice, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within two weeks challenging the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 in the unique facts and circumstances of this Court.
It is made clear that if the appeal is not filed within two weeks and there is any delay, then the condonation of delay shall be considered by the appropriate appellate authority in accordance with law.
The Petitioner further states that it does not press to challenge the Notification No.9/2023-State tax dated 11th July 2024 issued by Respondent No. 4- Principal Commissioner (Finance), Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Notification No. 56/2023 dated 28th December 2023 issued by Respondent No. 3- Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs or any other reliefs.
The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MARCH 20, 2025dj/ck
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.