Delhi High Court
Dish Tv India Ltd. Through Its ... vs Gst Officer, Ward-209, New Delhi And ... on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 5475/2024, CM APPL. 22567/2024 & CM APPL.
22568/2024
DISH TV INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE ..... Petitioner
versus
GST OFFICER, WARD-209,
WARD NEW DELHI AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Sarin, Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh
& Mr. Satish C. Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms.
Shaguftha H. Badhwar, Mr. Prateek
Badhwar & Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocates
for R-1 & 2
Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Subham
Kumar & Mr. Vipul Teotia, Advocates for
R-3 & 5.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 30.12.2023, whereby the
impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2023, proposing a demand
W.P. (C) 5475/2024
of Rs.77,80,646.00
77,80,646.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a
demand including penalty has been raised against the Petitioner. The
order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for respondent. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for
final disposal today.
3. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed
detailed replies dated 26.10.2023
26.10.2023 and 06.11.2023, however, the
impugned order dated 30.12.2023 does not take into consideration the
replies submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order.
4. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2023
.09.2023 shows that
the Department has given reasons under separate headings i.e.,
taxpayer has availed the more ITC as mentioned above in GSTR
GSTR-3B
in compression to the ITC available in GSTR
GSTR-2A;
2A; short payment of
tax in compression GSTR-1;
GSTR and input tax credit has been wrongly
availed and utilized by the taxpayer.
ta . To the said Show Cause Notice,
detailed replies
repl were furnished by the petitioner giving disclosures
under each of the heads.
5. Impugned order dated 30.12.2023 issued on Show Cause
Notice dated 30.09.2023,
.09.2023, after recording the narration records that no
proper reply/explanation
/explanation has been uploaded by the taxpayer. It states
W.P. (C) 5475/2024
"And
And whereas, it is noticed that the Taxpayer has failed to deposit
Tax/Interest amount through DRC-03
DRC 03 or provide any plausible
explanation regarding non-deposit
deposit of the Tax/Interest amount within
stipulated time.And whereas, the Taxpayer was allowed opportunity to
explain Tax deficiencies during Personal Hearing before Proper
Officer on the given date and time, Further, another opportunity to
submit reply and observing Principles of natural
atural justice, opportunity
for Personal Hearing, as per provision of Section 75(4) CGST/DGST
Act, was also provided to the taxpayer by issuing "REMINDER"
through the GST portal. Now, since no proper reply / explanation
have been received from the Taxpayer despite sufficient and repeated
opportunities, which indicate that the Taxpayer has nothing to say in
the matter."
6. The Proper Officer has opined that that no proper
reply/explanation has been received from the taxpayer.
taxpayer
7. The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not
sustainable for the reasons that the replies dated 26.10.2023 and
06.11.2023 filed by the Petitioner are detailed repl
replies along with
supporting documents.
documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the
replies on merit and then form
orm an opinion. He merely held that that no
proper reply/explanation has been received from the taxpayer, without
dealing with the same,
same which ex-facie
facie shows that Proper Officer has
not applied his mind to the replies
repl submitted by the petitioner.
W.P. (C) 5475/2024
8. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further
details were required, the same could have been specifically sought
from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such
opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish
further documents/details.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023
cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the
Proper Officer for re
re-adjudication.
adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 30.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper
Officer for re
re-adjudication.
10. Petitioner may file a further reply to the Show Cause Notice
within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, the Proper Officer
shall re-adjudicate
adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity
of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in
accordance with law within
within the period prescribed under Section 75 (3)
of the Act.
11. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All
rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
12. The challenge to Notification
Notification No. 9 of 2023 with regard to the
initial extension of time is left open.
W.P. (C) 5475/2024
13. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
APRIL 16,, 2024
RM
W.P. (C) 5475/2024
