Delhi High Court
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Gst on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 339/2024 & CM APPL. 1544/2024
RADIANT CASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD ..... Petitioner
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. L. Maithili and Mr. Kartikeya Sharma,
Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Samridhi
Vats, Advocate for CBIC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns eight orders all dated 23.12.2023 passed
under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
pertaining to the period 2017-18 wherein a demand has been created
against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Show Cause
Notice was issued to the petitioner contending that petitioner has
incorrectly carried forward input tax credit amounting to Rs.
41,64,080/- as reflected at Sl. No. 6 of the Show Cause Notice and
thereafter at Sl. No. 9, a similar amount was reflected as having been
utilized in the same year. She submits that petitioner had earlier
approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.
15210/2023 which was disposed of on 24.11.2023 directing the
respondent to examine the issues raised by the petitioner and pass a
speaking order. She submits that instead of passing a speaking order,
cryptic orders have been passed which do not take into account
submissions of the petitioner as also the reply filed by the petitioner.
3. Perusal of the orders dated 23.12.2023 shows that same are
cryptic, contrary in as much as in some there is a reference of personal
hearing given and some orders record that petitioner did not avail the
opportunity of personal hearing. Said orders clearly show complete
non-application of mind. Accordingly, the same are quashed.
4. Further, the petition is disposed of directing the Proper Officer
to comply with order dated 24.11.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.
15210/2023 and re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notices after taking
into account the reply filed by the petitioner as also the contentions of
the petitioner that there is no utilization of the input tax credit in the
same year as the same has already been carried forward to the next
year and that Sl. No. 9 of the Show Cause Notice is contradicted by
Sl. No. 6 of the Show Cause Notice itself.
5. Let the Proper Officer pass an order within a period of three
weeks from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
7. Since the respondents have failed to comply with order dated
23.12.2023, list for reporting compliance of order dated 24.11.2023 as
well as this order on 27.05.2024.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
APRIL 24, 2024
'rs'
