Case Law Details
Jain Cement Udyog Vs Sales Tax Officer Class-II (Delhi High Court)
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court recently quashed an order issued by the Sales Tax Officer (Class-II) concerning Jain Cement Udyog for the tax period from July 2018 to March 2019. The order, passed on 23 April 2024, had drawn the attention of the Court due to its overlap with a prior decision made by the tax authorities in 2021.
The issue arose from the fact that, on 30 December 2020, the petitioner, Jain Cement Udyog, was served with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for the same tax period. This process culminated in a final order passed on 1 February 2021. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal against this 2021 decision. However, despite the finality of the 2021 order, a second order, dated 23 April 2024, was issued, referring to the same tax period and based on the original Show Cause Notice issued in 2020.
The Court took note of the discrepancy between the prior decision and the new order, questioning the validity of re-addressing the same issue. The petitioner’s counsel argued that such a move was legally unsustainable, especially since a final order had already been passed on the same matter.
In the hearing, Mr. Malik, counsel for the respondent, acknowledged the overlap, confirming that the impugned order of 23 April 2024 pertained to the same tax period addressed in the 2021 final order. With these facts in mind, the Court found the order to be in violation of legal procedure and quashed it on these grounds.
The Delhi High Court has allowed the writ petition, thereby providing relief to Jain Cement Udyog. However, the judgment does not affect any rights or contentions related to the initial 2021 order, which remains under appeal. The parties involved are free to continue with their respective legal processes regarding the 2021 decision.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. We had taken note of the challenge which stands raised in the writ petition in our order of 30 September 2024 and which is extracted hereunder:-
“1. We take note of what prima facie appears to be an apparent mistake underlying the passing of the impugned order dated 23 April 2024, a decision which pertains to the tax period of July 2018 to March 2019.
2. On 30 December 2020 the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice for the said period. Those proceedings ultimately culminated in the passing of a final order dated 01 February 2021 which presently forms subject matter of challenge in a statutory appeal.
3. However, notwithstanding those proceedings having culminated in the passing of a final order, the impugned order dated 23 April 2024 has come to be framed all over again pertaining to the same tax period and referring to the original Show Cause Notice dated 30 December 2020. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the impugned order would not sustain.
4. We, consequently, request Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, to obtain instructions.
5. Let the writ petition be called again on 23.10.2024.”
2. Mr. Malik, learned counsel, on instructions submits that the order of 23 April 2024 undoubtedly pertains to the same tax period in respect of which a final order came to be passed on 01 February 2021. We are informed that the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of 01 February 2021.
3. In view of the aforesaid and admitted facts which emerge, it is apparent that the impugned order of 23 April 2024 would not sustain.
4. Accordingly, and on this short ground alone, we allow the present writ petition and quash the order of 23 April 2024.
5. All rights and contentions of respective parties, insofar as the determination forming part of 01 February 2021 is concerned, are kept open.
Author Bio
