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

Facts

The petitioner, Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an action by the revenue authorities. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that the demand raised in a show cause notice had been dropped. However, the petitioner 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 identified as an officer of the Income Tax Department.

Held

The Court decided not to delve into the issue of the competency of the adjudicating officer at this juncture, as the revenue had stated that the demand against the assessee no longer subsisted. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the writ petition if the revenue were to recall or review the order and the issue of competency were to gain significance. Regarding the second issue, the Court found the petitioner's grievance about the typographical error to be valid. Consequently, the Court ordered that the order dated 05.04.2021 be corrected to reflect Mr. Hriday Singh's rank as Assistant Commissioner, CGST. This correction was to be made both in the body of the order and in the cause title where appearances were recorded. The application was disposed of in 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, 2017? The petitioner contended that the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication) was not the competent authority, but rather the Commissioner (Adjudication) should have passed the order. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the competency of the officer, but rather confirmed that the demand was dropped. 2. Whether a typographical error in the adjudication order, misidentifying the rank of an officer, warrants correction? The petitioner argued that Mr. Hriday Singh was incorrectly referred to as an Income Tax Department officer, whereas he was an officer of the CGST. The revenue acknowledged this error.