Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s Payworld Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Sugal and Damani Utility Services Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 5881/2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :

M/s Payworld Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Sugal and Damani Utility Services Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court heard the case of M/s. Payworld Digital Services Private Limited [W.P. (C) 5881/2024] (“the Petitioner”) on April 26, 2024 where the Show Cause Notice was adjudicated upon by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) after a delay of 11 years and 9.5 years.

The Petitioner contended that, the Respondent at the passing of the Impugned Order has erred in placing the burden on the Assessee to prove that there was no delay on part of the Respondent when interpreting the expression “where it is possible to do so” as per Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994, it implies that there were some circumstances due to which it was impossible for authority to adjudicate the show cause notice.

The Petitioner further contends that, despite such delay there was not even a single fact in the impugned Order which prevented the Respondent from proceeding with the adjudication of Show Cause Notice.

The Hon’ble High Court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing on May 14, 2024.

FULL TEXT OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Principal Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has erred in placing the burden on the assessee to establish that there was no delay on the part of the department while interpreting the expression, “where it is possible to do so”. Learned counsel submits that expression, “where it is possible to do so” really implies that there were some circumstances which made it impossible for the authority to adjudicate the show cause notice. He submits that there was an unexplained delay of 11 years and 9.5 years respectively in the adjudication of show cause notice and the impugned order does not even refer to one single fact as to what prevented the authority to proceed with the adjudication of show cause notice.

2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent, who prays for time to produce the record to establish as to whether there were any circumstances which made it impossible for the authority to adjudicate the show cause notice.

3. At request, list on 14.05.2024.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

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 *

Search Post by Date
June 2024
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930