M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s RST Batteries, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging three orders passed against it by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors. Two of these orders, dated 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, were passed pursuant to Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated 02.08.2024. The third order was passed on 03.02.2025 upon completion of an investigation. The Petitioner contended that there was a duplication in these orders. The Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, acknowledged the potential duplication and stated that the proceedings initiated by the two SCNs, adjudicated by the orders dated 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, could be considered for withdrawal if found legally correct due to duplication.
Held
The Court noted the Petitioner's contention of duplication in the orders passed against it, specifically the two orders dated 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, which were pursuant to SCNs dated 02.08.2024. The Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, acknowledged this potential duplication and stated that the said orders could be considered for withdrawal if found legally correct. The Respondents further assured the Court that necessary corrective steps would be taken by the competent authority within one week. In light of this statement and the admission of potential duplication by the Respondents, the Court found no further order to be required. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the orders dated 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, passed pursuant to SCNs dated 02.08.2024, are vitiated by duplication of proceedings, thereby rendering them liable to be withdrawn or set aside, in light of the Petitioner's contention of duplication and the Respondent's admission of potential duplication? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that there was a duplication in the orders passed against it, specifically highlighting the two orders passed pursuant to SCNs dated 02.08.2024 and the third order passed upon completion of investigation. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents, through their counter-affidavit, submitted that the proceedings initiated by the SCNs dated 02.08.2024, which were adjudicated by the orders dated 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, may be considered for withdrawal if found legally correct, acknowledging the possibility of duplication of proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
At present, there are three orders against the Petitioner. One order was passed on 03.02.2025, upon completion of the investigation. The other two orders were passed on 10.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, pursuant to the Show Cause Notices („SCNs‟) dated 02.08.2024. 2. The Petitioner contends that there is duplication in the aforesaid orders.
A copy of the reply/counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents is taken on record today. Paragraph 10 thereof reads as under:
That it is respectfully submitted that the proceedings initiated vide SCN No. 214/2024-25 dated 02.08.2024 & 202/2024-25 dated 02.08.2024 had been adjudicated vide O-I-O No. 348/2024-25
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.