Case Law Details
Np Trading Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Np Trading Co. challenging the cancellation of its CGST registration, which was effective from 1st July 2017. The bone of contention was a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner, which was deemed defective due to the lack of specific details regarding the invoices or bills allegedly issued without any underlying supply of goods or services.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner argued that the SCN dated 5th November 2021 failed to provide essential details necessary for formulating a response, specifically, the absence of details concerning the invoices or bills in question. This lack of specificity essentially rendered the petitioner unable to adequately address the allegations, as there was no clear understanding of which transactions were under scrutiny.
The respondent, representing the Commissioner of GST & Anr., conceded to the shortcomings of the SCN and committed to furnishing all requisite details supporting the SCN to the petitioner. This would enable a fresh adjudication process based on a more detailed and substantiated SCN.
The High Court’s decision to set aside the impugned order dated 23rd December 2021 and the directive for the respondent to provide a detailed SCN underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on the right to a fair hearing and due process. The court mandated a timeline for the submission of details by the respondent and the filing of a reply by the petitioner, followed by a reassessment of the SCN by the respondents in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: This ruling by the Delhi High Court illuminates the critical importance of precision and clarity in the issuance of SCNs, especially in matters of tax evasion and CGST registration cancellation. It affirms the necessity for governmental authorities to adhere to procedural fairness, enabling accused parties to effectively respond to allegations against them. Moreover, this judgment reinforces the legal principle that actions affecting rights and obligations must be based on detailed and specific allegations, ensuring justice and fairness in administrative proceedings. The decision also provides a procedural roadmap for both authorities and petitioners in similar disputes, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding due process and the rule of law in tax-related matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.12.2021 whereby the CGST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner interalia submits that Show Cause Notice dated 05.11.2021 is itself defective in as much as it does not provide any details of the alleged invoices or bills which were made without supply of goods or services. He submits that no enquiry has been conducted to even certain as to which invoice or bill has been issued without any underlying supply. He further submits that since there were no details provided the petitioner was precluded from filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that respondent shall furnish all the requisite details in support of the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and thereafter adjudicate the Show Cause Notice afresh.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 is set aside. Respondents are directed to furnish all material that they possess in support of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.11.2021 to the petitioner within one week. Petitioner shall file a reply within a period of seven working days thereof. Respondents shall thereafter adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law within a maximum period of two weeks of filing of the reply.
5. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor committed on the merits of contentions of either party. Proper Officer shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice uninfluenced by anything stated in this order on merits. He shall pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
6. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of such remedies as may be available in law in case aggrieved by any further order passed by the Proper Officer.
7. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Author Bio
