Case Law Details
Babaji Bags A Proprietary Firm Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has overturned an order related to a GST show cause notice (SCN) due to incorrect email communication. The petitioner, Ajay Kukreja, challenged the order dated 21.11.2023, which adjudicated the SCN issued on 30.08.2022, leading to a demand against the petitioner.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, there was a failure in communication as the petitioner never received any correspondence regarding the hearing. It was argued that the communication purportedly sent by the respondent was directed to an incorrect email address.
The petitioner emphasized that they have consistently used a single email address, ajaykukreja2015@gmail.com, for all communications. The court recorded this statement and directed the department to correspond using the specified email address.
However, the respondents’ counsel contended that the communication was sent to the email address of the person who had registered the petitioner, attributing the error to changes in departmental personnel. It was acknowledged that the intimation was not sent to the aforementioned email address but to another one.
Considering the petitioner’s lack of notification regarding the hearing, the court deemed it necessary to remit the matter to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the order dated 21.11.2023 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the SCN issued on 30.08.2022.
Additionally, it was brought to light that the petitioner had already filed an application for rectifying a mistake in Form GSTR-3B for the period July 2017 to November 2018, which remained unresolved. The court directed the Competent Authority to duly consider the petitioner’s rectification application in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper communication and procedural fairness in adjudicative matters concerning GST. This case underscores the significance of accurate correspondence and timely rectification processes in tax-related disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 21.11.2023 whereby the show cause notice dated 30.08.2022 has been adjudicated and a demand created against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner never received any communication with regard to the hearing and the communication alleged to have been sent by the respondent was sent on an incorrect e-mail address.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has always been communicating by using only one e-mail address e. ajaykukreja2015@gmail.com. The statement is taken on record. The department is directed to communicate with the petitioner by using the aforementioned e-mail address.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the communication was sent on the e-mail address of the person who had registered the petitioner. He submits that there seems to be an error in the department on account of change of officers. He concedes that the intimation was not sent on the above e-mail address but on another address.
5. Keeping in view of the fact that petitioner was never intimated about the hearing on the show cause notice, we are of the view that the matter calls for a remit so that the petitioner can be given an opportunity of hearing.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 30.08.2022 afresh.
7. We are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application has already been filed by the petitioner seeking the rectification of mistake committed by the petitioner in Form GSTR3B for the period July, 2017 to November, 2018 and the application has till date not been disposed of.
8. We direct the Competent Authority to consider the application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the mistake in accordance with law.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
