Case Law Details
R L Enterprises Vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In the case of R L Enterprises Vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Delhi & Anr., the Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order dated December 24, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 22, 2023, which alleged that the petitioner wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the cancellation of registration of certain suppliers from whom they had purchased goods. In response to the SCN, the petitioner contended that these suppliers were registered at the time of the transactions and that they had paid the corresponding GST, justifying their claim for ITC. However, the adjudicating authority did not address this contention in the impugned order. During the proceedings, the respondents’ counsel suggested that the order be set aside and the case remanded for fresh consideration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order and provided the petitioner with a two-week extension to submit supporting documents. The adjudicating authority is now mandated to review the matter afresh, ensuring the petitioner is given an opportunity to be heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 24.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the SGST Act). The impugned order was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN) alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (hereafter the ITC).
2. The said allegation was founded on the basis that the registration of certain suppliers from whom the petitioner had availed the supplies, was cancelled.
3. The petitioner responded to the impugned SCN on 30.10.2023 claiming that at the material time the suppliers from whom the petitioner had availed the supplies were registered under the CGST Act and the SGST Act. The petitioner also stated that it had paid the amount of invoice raised by the said suppliers, which included the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to avail the ITC as claimed.
4. It appears that said contention has not been examined by the adjudicating authority as the impugned order does not reflect any such consideration.
5. Mr Singhvi, the learned counsel for the respondents states, on instructions, that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is granted one more opportunity to file all documents and material in support of his contention that it is entitled to avail ITC within two weeks from date. The adjudicating authority shall pass the apposite order afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid directions.
Author Bio
