Case Law Details
MAA Padmawati Lamination Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others (Delhi High Court)
In the case of MAA Padmawati Lamination vs. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others, the petitioner challenged an order dated 15.03.2024, which created a demand against the petitioner for an alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-2019. The impugned order noted that no reply or explanation had been received from the taxpayer.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that a reply was indeed filed, albeit belatedly, on 10.03.2024, before the impugned order was passed. However, the proper officer did not consider the reply. The petitioner contended that the reply clearly stated that Form GSTR-2A, GSTR-8A, and GSTR-9, available on the portal, demonstrated that there was no excess claim of Input Tax Credit.
Upon hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court issued notice, which was accepted by the counsel representing the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal.
After examining Form GSTR-2A available on the portal, the court observed prima facie that the proper officer had not carefully examined it. Consequently, the court concluded that the impugned order warranted remittance.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was restored on the file of the proper officer. The officer was directed to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with the law, after examining the petitioner’s reply and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The court clarified that it had neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of either party, and all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved.
Consequently, the petition was disposed of in the above terms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 15.03.2024, whereby, a demand has been created against the Petitioner on account of alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit for the financial year 2018-2019.
2. The impugned order also records that no reply or explanation has been received from the taxpayer.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that reply was filed, though belated, on 10.03.2024, before the impugned order was passed. However, the same has not been even looked at by the Proper Officer.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it was categorically stated in the reply that Form GSTR-2A, GSTR-8A and GSTR-9, as available on the portal, clearly demonstrate that there was no excess claim of Input Tax Credit by the Petitioner and the Proper Officer has erred in not even looking at the same.
5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
6. We have been taken through Form GSTR-2A, as available on the portal and from it prima facie appears that the same has not been carefully examined by the Proper Officer. In view thereof, we are of the view that the impugned order calls for a remit
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set aside. Show Cause Notice is restored on the file of the Proper Officer, who shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law after examining the reply filed by the Petitioner and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3) of the Act.
8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
