M/S Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Ors., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The core of the dispute revolved around a show cause notice and a subsequent adjudication order. The revenue, represented by Union of India & Ors., initially made a statement on 05.04.2021 that the demand raised in the show cause notice stood dropped. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the adjudication order, which dropped the demand, was passed by an officer not competent to do so, namely the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East), instead of the Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East). Additionally, the petitioner pointed out a typographical error in the order dated 05.04.2021, where Mr. Hriday Singh was incorrectly referred to as an officer of the Income Tax Department.

Held

The Court held that the grievance regarding the competency of the adjudicating officer need not be decided at that juncture, as the contesting respondents had taken the position that the demand against the assessee no longer subsisted. The Court stated that this aspect would gain significance only if the contesting respondents were to recall or review the order, at which point the petitioner would be entitled to contest the matter and potentially revive the writ petition, with liberty granted for such an eventuality. Regarding the typographical error, the Court found the petitioner to be correct. Consequently, the order dated 05.04.2021 was directed to be corrected to reflect Mr. Hriday Singh's rank as Assistant Commissioner, CGST, both in the body of the order and alongside the cause title where appearances were recorded. The application was disposed of in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order, which dropped the demand, was passed by a competent authority, specifically concerning the designation of the officer who passed it, as per the relevant provisions of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) was not the competent authority, and the order should have been passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East). The revenue, through its counsel, stated that the demand raised in the show cause notice stands dropped and that the statement holds. 2. Whether a typographical error in the order dated 05.04.2021, which incorrectly identified the rank of Mr. Hriday Singh as an Income Tax Department officer instead of Assistant Commissioner, CGST, requires correction? The petitioner contended that this error appeared in both the body and the cause title of the order. The revenue did not contest this point.