Tata Play Ltd Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 75(5) of the CGST Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. Accordingly, writ dismissed as not entertained.
Facts- The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Tata Play Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 30thNovember, 2024 issued by the Respondent- Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Department of Trade and Taxes Office, New Delhi, pertaining to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021.
The petition also challenges the consequent demand order dated 28thFebruary, 2025 arising from the impugned SCN whereby the Respondent has demanded a payment of Rs. 5,63,52,147/- as tax along with Rs. 4,22,64,110/- towards interest and Rs. 56,35,214/- towards penalty in respect of the tax period April 2020 – March 2021.
Conclusion- A perusal of section 75(5) of the CGST Act would show that it is only upon sufficient cause being shown, that an adjournment of hearing can be granted by the proper officer. The proviso to the said provision states that a maximum of three adjournments can be granted in any circumstance. However, this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. For seeking an adjournment, such person has to show sufficient cause and at the bare minimum, has to at least make a request for adjournment.
