Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Spinclabs Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 4187/2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Spinclabs Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax And Ors. (Delhi High Court)

In this case, Spinclabs Private Limited challenges two orders dated 31.12.2023 regarding show cause notices issued against them proposing a demand of Rs.42,74,423.00 and Rs.33,32,254.00. The petitioner argues that their detailed replies submitted on 14.12.2023 and 03.10.2023 were not considered in the orders, which were deemed cryptic. The notices were related to excess claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and scrutiny of ITC availed and reversals. Despite the petitioner’s detailed responses, the orders deemed them unsatisfactory and lacking supporting documents. The court finds fault with the orders, stating that the Proper Officer did not properly consider the petitioner’s submissions. It orders the matter to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication, directing the petitioner to file replies to the show cause notices within 30 days and instructing the Proper Officer to provide a fresh speaking order after a personal hearing. The court clarifies that it has not addressed the merits of the case and leaves open the challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

Petitioner impugns two orders both dated 31.12.2023, whereby impugned Show Cause Notices dated 05.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 proposing a demand of Rs.42,74,423.00 and Rs.33,32,254.00 respectively against the Petitioner have been disposed of and demand including penalty has been created against the Petitioner. The orders have been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed detailed replies dated 14.12.2023 and 03.10.2023, however, the impugned orders dated 31.12.2023 do not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and are cryptic orders.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031