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

Facts

The petitioner, Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an action by the revenue authorities. The revenue, represented by Union of India & Ors., had previously made a statement on April 5, 2021, indicating that the demand raised in a show cause notice stood dropped. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the subsequent adjudication order, which dropped the demand, was passed by an officer not competent to issue such an order. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) passed the order, whereas the competent officer should have been the Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East). Additionally, the petitioner pointed out a typographical error in the order, where Mr. Hriday Singh, on whose instructions the statement was made, was incorrectly identified as an officer of the Income Tax Department instead of Assistant Commissioner, CGST.

Held

The Court decided not to delve into the issue of the competency of the adjudicating officer at this juncture, as the revenue had taken the position that the demand against the assessee no longer subsisted. The Court reasoned that this aspect would only gain significance if the revenue 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. Liberty was granted to the petitioner in this regard. Regarding the typographical error, the Court found the petitioner's grievance to be valid. Consequently, the Court ordered that the order dated April 5, 2021, be corrected to reflect Mr. Hriday Singh's correct designation as Assistant Commissioner, CGST. This correction was to be made both in the body of the order and in the recorded appearances. The application was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dropping the demand was passed by a competent authority, as required by law, considering the petitioner's contention that the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication) lacked the necessary authority, which should have been vested in the Commissioner (Adjudication)? 2. Whether a typographical error in the adjudication order, misidentifying the rank of Mr. Hriday Singh as an Income Tax officer instead of Assistant Commissioner, CGST, renders the order invalid or requires correction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed by an officer lacking the requisite competency, specifically citing the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication) instead of the Commissioner (Adjudication). The petitioner also highlighted a significant typographical error in the order, which incorrectly identified Mr. Hriday Singh's department, impacting the record of appearances and the body of the order. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through its counsel, confirmed that the statement made on April 5, 2021, holding that the demand stood dropped, was still valid. The revenue did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claims regarding the competency of the officer or the typographical error, implicitly accepting the situation as presented by the petitioner.