Case Law Details
SPS Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the case of SPS Enterprises versus the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Another. The court invalidated an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply and evidence.
Analysis: The petitioner contested an order dated 29.12.2023, which proposed a demand of Rs. 5,46,288.00 against them under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite submitting a detailed reply dated 23.12.2023 with supporting documents, the impugned order did not adequately consider the petitioner’s submissions.
While the show cause notice outlined reasons for the demand, the impugned order concluded that no satisfactory reply or substantial documents were submitted by the taxpayer. However, this observation contradicted the petitioner’s detailed response and supporting evidence.
The court noted that the Proper Officer failed to consider the petitioner’s reply on merits and hastily concluded that it was unsatisfactory. Moreover, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to clarify their reply or provide further details.
Considering these deficiencies, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the show cause notice to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Proper Officer was directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against the petitioner and provide them with an opportunity to file a further reply within 30 days. Subsequently, the Proper Officer was instructed to re-adjudicate the matter after a personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of due process and proper consideration of submissions in tax assessments. By invalidating the assessment order and ordering re-adjudication, the court upholds the principles of natural justice and ensures fairness in tax proceedings. This ruling underscores the significance of procedural integrity and transparency in tax matters, safeguarding the rights of taxpayers and maintaining the rule of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.12.2023 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 proposing a demand of Rs.5,46,288.00/- against the petitioner had been disposed of and demand including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal today.
3. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 23.12.2023 however, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order.
4. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 shows that the Department has given reasons under separate headings i.e., net tax under declared due to non-reconciliation of turnovers in other returns and e-way bill and excess claim of Input Tax Credit [“ITC”]. To the said Show Cause Notice, a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner giving response under each of the heads with supporting documents.
5. The impugned order, however, after recording the narration records that no satisfactory reply and no substantial documents were submitted by the taxpayer. It states that “And whereas, for the sake of natural justice, another opportunity to submit reply and opportunity for Personal Hearing, as per provision of Section 75(4) DGST Act, was also provided to the taxpayer by issuing “REMINDER” through the GST portal. However, the taxpayer did not appear for personal hearing on the given date and time. Since, no satisfactory reply / no substantial documents submitted by the taxpayer despite sufficient and repeated opportunities as well as not appeared for personal hearing, which indicate that the taxpayer has nothing to say in the matter. In view of aforesaid circumstances, the undersigned is left with no other option except to create demand, in accordance with the provisions of CGST / DGST Act & Rules, 2017, as per discrepancies already conveyed through SCN/ DRC-01.” The Proper Officer has opined that the taxpayer has not filed a satisfactory reply nor substantial documents.
6. The observation in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 23.12.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory and no substantial documents have been submitted by the taxpayer which ex-facie shows that the Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
7. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against the petitioner pursuant to impugned order dated 29.12.2023, inter-alia, blocking of credit ledger and the provisional attachment of property including bank account, if any.
9. Petitioner may file a further reply to the Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3) of the Act.
10. 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.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
