Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kalpatru Projects International Limited Vs Goods And Service Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 5728/2024 & CM APPLs. 23602-03/2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Kalpatru Projects International Limited Vs Goods And Service Tax Officer (Delhi High Court)

In the case of Kalpatru Projects International Limited versus Goods and Service Tax Officer, the petitioner contested an order dated 28.12.2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023. This notice proposed a substantial demand of Rs. 7,86,84,337.00 against the petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that despite submitting a detailed reply on 07.11.2023, the impugned order failed to consider their response adequately.

The Show Cause Notice encompassed various issues, including under-declaration of output tax, excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), and scrutiny of ITC availed from different sources. The petitioner provided comprehensive disclosures under each of these heads in their reply to the notice. However, the impugned order, after acknowledging the submission, dismissed it summarily, stating that the reply was not satisfactory. The order further indicated that no further additional reply or explanation was received from the taxpayer, leading to a demand ex-parte.

The petitioner contended that their reply was detailed and accompanied by supporting documents. They argued that the Proper Officer should have considered their response on its merits rather than dismissing it outright. Moreover, they highlighted the lack of opportunity to provide further details or documents if deemed necessary by the Proper Officer.

The court agreed with the petitioner’s argument, noting that the Proper Officer had not adequately examined the petitioner’s reply. The court emphasized that the Proper Officer should have at least considered the reply on its merits before forming an opinion. Additionally, if further information was required, the Proper Officer should have explicitly requested it from the petitioner, which was not evident from the record.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031