Case Law Details
Max Healthcare Institute Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Max Healthcare Institute Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. addresses the issue of non-application of mind by the Proper Officer while passing an order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.12.2023, alleging that the Proper Officer failed to consider their detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice, resulting in an erroneous demand raised against them.
Detailed Analysis
The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply to the Show Cause Notice, addressing each of the allegations raised by the Department. However, the impugned order merely stated that the reply was devoid of merits without providing any reasoned analysis. The court observed that this indicated a lack of application of mind by the Proper Officer.
Furthermore, the court noted that the Proper Officer did not seek further clarification or documents from the petitioner if deemed necessary. This failure to afford the petitioner an opportunity to clarify or supplement their reply was deemed unfair.
The court emphasized that the Proper Officer’s duty is to consider the merits of the reply submitted by the taxpayer before reaching a conclusion. Since this was not done in the present case, the court held that the impugned order could not be sustained.
In light of the above, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Proper Officer was directed to intimate the petitioner about any additional details or documents required, allowing them an opportunity to respond before passing a fresh order.
It is important to note that the court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on procedural fairness and the Proper Officer’s duty to consider submissions made by the taxpayer.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the importance of the Proper Officer’s duty to thoroughly consider the submissions made by taxpayers before passing orders under the CGST Act. Failure to do so can render the orders unsustainable and necessitate re-adjudication. This case serves as a reminder of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative proceedings under the GST regime.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 24.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs.8,22,82,330.00 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. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that a detailed reply dated 23.10.2023 was filed to the Show Cause Notice, however, the impugned order dated 24.12.2023 does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order.
3. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that the Department has given separate headings under declaration of output tax, excess claim Input Tax Credit [“ITC”], under declaration of ineligible ITC and ITC claim from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non- To the said Show Cause Notice, a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner giving full disclosures under each of the heads.
4. The impugned order, however, after recording the narration, records that the reply uploaded by the tax payer is not satisfactory. It merely states that “And whereas, the taxpayer has filed their h objections/reply online on portal through DRC-06 which has been examined thoroughly and was found to be devoid of merits. Therefore, following principle of natural justice before passing. any adverse order, further personal hearing opportunity was given to the taxpayer. And whereas, taxpayer/authorized representative appeared for personal hearing apart from reply filed no other additional information/documents were submitted by the taxpayer, hence undersigned is left with no other option but to issue DRC-07 on the basis of reply and documents available on the portal. And whereas, on examination of the reply/documents furnished by the taxpayer, it has been observed that since the reply is devoid of merits without any justification or: proper reconciliation, the demand raised in SCN/DRC-01 is hereby upheld along-with penalty.” The Proper Officer has opined that the reply is unsatisfactory.
5. The observation in the impugned order dated 24.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was devoid of merits. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
6. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
7. In view of the above, the order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
8. As noticed hereinabove, the impugned order records that petitioner has not furnished the requisite details. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents. 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.
9. 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.
10. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 with regard to the initial extension of time is left open.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
