Ms Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Ors., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order. The respondents, Union of India & Ors., through their counsel, stated that the demand raised in a show cause notice had been dropped. The petitioner's counsel argued that the adjudication order dropping the demand was passed by an officer not competent to issue it, specifically 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, on whose instructions the statement was made, was incorrectly referred to as an officer of the Income Tax Department instead of Assistant Commissioner, CGST.

Held

The Court addressed two main points. Firstly, regarding the competency of the officer who passed the adjudication order, the Court found that this issue need not be decided at that juncture. This was because the contesting respondents had taken the position that the demand against the assessee no longer subsisted. The Court noted that if the respondents were to recall or review this order, the competency aspect might gain significance, and the petitioner would then be entitled to contest the matter and potentially revive the writ petition. Liberty was granted for this eventuality. Secondly, concerning the typographical error in the order dated 05.04.2021, the Court agreed with the petitioner. It held that the order should be corrected to reflect Mr. Hriday Singh's correct rank as Assistant Commissioner, CGST. This correction was to be made both in the body of the order and in the section recording appearances. The application was disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dropping the demand was passed by a competent authority, as per the provisions of the CGST Act, specifically concerning the delegation of powers to issue such orders? 2. Whether a typographical error in referring to the rank of Mr. Hriday Singh in the order dated 05.04.2021 warrants correction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed by an officer lacking the requisite competency, arguing that the Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) was the designated competent authority, not the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication). The petitioner also highlighted a significant typographical error in the order, where Mr. Hriday Singh's designation was misrepresented, impacting the accuracy of the record. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through its counsel, confirmed that the demand raised in the show cause notice had been dropped and that the statement made on 05.04.2021 still held. The revenue did not contest the petitioner's assertion regarding the typographical error.