Case Law Details
Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class-II Ward-I Zone-I Delhi & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The case of Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer Class-II, Ward-I, Zone-I, Delhi & Ors. before the Delhi High Court revolves around show cause notices issued to the petitioner regarding irregularities in the availment of input tax credit. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment/order passed by the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner, aggrieved by show cause notices, raised concerns about the lack of specific details in the notices regarding alleged discrepancies in input tax credit. Despite seeking time to respond, the petitioner’s request was not accommodated by the Proper Officer. The absence of clarity regarding the alleged discrepancies further compounded the petitioner’s apprehensions.
In response to the petitioner’s concerns, the Delhi High Court issued a directive, directing the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice for the financial year 2019-20 and 2020-21 within 30 days. Additionally, the Court mandated the petitioner’s appearance before the Sales Tax Officer for clarification on the specified date and time.
Furthermore, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to seek further remedies in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the Court neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the case of either party.
The judgment/order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer Class-II, Ward-I, Zone-I, Delhi & Ors. underscores the importance of procedural clarity and adherence to timelines in matters concerning input tax credit irregularities. While providing the petitioner with the opportunity to respond to the show cause notices, the Court ensures procedural fairness while refraining from making any determination on the merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by show cause notices dated 19.01.2024 read with communication dated 29.01.2024 whereby petitioner has been required to explain certain discrepancies in the availment of input tax credit. It is intimated to the petitioner that there appears to be irregular availment of input tax credit for the financial year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific details have not been mentioned in the said notice with regard to the alleged mis-match or irregular availment. He submits that time was sought from the Proper Officer for responding to the show cause notice. However, he has not acceded to the said request.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the audit observation, no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and as such there is no clarity as to the discrepancy alleged by the department.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent who submits that limitation for adjudicating show cause notice for the financial year 2018-19 ends on 30.04.2024. He submits that in case any specific query is made by the petitioner, the Proper officer shall duly provide the said information keeping in view the timeline for adjudication.
5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice for the financial year 2019-20 and 2020-21 within 30 days from today.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the record is voluminous and several compliances need to be made, petitioner may be constrained to request the department for enlarging the time for submitting the response. In case such a request is made to the department, the department shall consider the same in accordance with law.
7. Petitioner shall appear before the Sales Tax Officer (Ward-1, Zone-1) who has issued the notice and is adjudicating the same on 15.04.2024 at 12.00 (Noon) for clarification/query if any. Said officer shall thereafter adjudicate the notice in accordance with law.
8. Petitioner shall have the liberty to take further remedies as may be permissible in law, in case petitioner is aggrieved by any further order passed by the Proper Officer.
9. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of case of either party.
Author Bio
