Case Law Details
Snar Homes Developer Vs Goods And Service Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
Background: The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Snar Homes Developer challenging the final order dated August 9, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The case stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on May 21, 2024, requiring a response by June 21, 2024. However, the petitioner failed to submit a reply within the initial deadline, prompting further developments in the case.
Subsequent Notice and Reply: The Sales Tax Officer issued a reminder on July 23, 2024, extending the deadline for submitting a reply to August 1, 2024. Acting on this extended deadline, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on July 26, 2024. Despite this submission, the final order passed on August 9, 2024, stated that no reply had been filed, forming the basis for the petitioner’s grievance.
Court’s Observation: The Delhi High Court observed that the impugned order was passed without taking into account the reply furnished by the petitioner on July 26, 2024. The court found this procedural lapse significant, as it directly affected the fairness of the adjudication process. The court held that any order passed without considering the petitioner’s reply could not be sustained under law.
Judgment and Directions: The High Court quashed the impugned order dated August 9, 2024, and directed the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the matter. The officer was instructed to take into account the reply submitted by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the law. The court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open, allowing fresh adjudication based on proper consideration.
Judicial Precedent: This case underscores the principles established in prior rulings, such as Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), where the Supreme Court emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must act fairly and consider all relevant materials before passing an order. Similarly, in R.K. Garg vs. Union of India (1982), procedural fairness was deemed a cornerstone of adjudication, reaffirming the petitioner’s right to have their reply duly considered.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 09 August 2024 purported to have been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act”].
2. The proceedings themselves had commenced pursuant to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] on 21 May 2024 and which had required the writ petitioner to furnish a response by 21 June 2024. Admittedly, no reply was filed by the assesee prior to the last date so prescribed.
3. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a subsequent notice/ reminder dated 23 July 2024 in terms of which the Sales Tax Officer itself had extended time for furnishing a reply upto 01 August 2024. It would appear that acting on the said communication the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26 July 2024.
4. However, the impugned order has come to be passed on the basis that no reply had been filed by the writ petitioner. The final order has thus come to be passed without bearing in consideration the reply which had been filed by the writ petitioner. We, consequently, find ourselves unable to sustain the impugned order for the aforesaid reason.
5. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 09 August 2024. It shall be open for the Sales Tax Officer to pass a fresh order taking into consideration the reply furnished by the writ petitioner and to take proceedings further in accordance with law.
6. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
Author Bio
