Delhi High Court
M/S D.C. Sales Through Proprietor ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 12.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 1987/2024 & CM APPLs. 8284-85/2024
M/S D.C. SALES THROUGH
PROPRIETOR DINESH BANSAL ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC for UOI with Mr. Anchit,
Advocate.
Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC for R-2 and 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.12.2023, whereby the
show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand against
the petitioner has been confirmed and a demand of Rs. 32,92,938/-
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.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a detailed
reply dated 25.10.2023 to the show cause notice was filed,
however, the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 does not take into
consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic
order which merely records that reply was not found satisfactory.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for
respondent.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, petition is
taken up for final disposal.
5. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that the
Department has given specific details of alleged under declaration
of output tax, excess claim Input Tax Credit ["ITC"], under
declaration of ineligible ITC and ITC claim from cancelled
dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers. To the said show
cause notice, a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner
giving full disclosures under each of the heads.
6. The impugned order, however, after recording the narration,
records that the reply uploaded by the tax payer is not satisfactory.
It merely states that "no reply/explanation has been received from
the taxpayer despite sufficient opportunities, which indicate that
the taxpayer has nothing to say in the matter. Hence, the
undersigned, being the Proper Officer, is left with no other option
but to create a demand ex parte, in accordance with provisions of
CGST/DGST Act, 2017". The Proper Officer has opined that reply
is not clear and unsatisfactory.
7. In case the Proper Officer was of the view that reply is
incomplete and further details were required, the same could have
been sought by 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.
8. Further petitioner was not provided with an adequate
opportunity to defend the show cause notice by way of a hearing.
9. In view thereof, the order cannot be sustained and the
matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-
adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order and show cause
notice is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for
re-adjudication.
10. As noticed hereinabove, the impugned order records that
petitioner has not furnished the requisite details. The Proper
Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents,
as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner within a period
of one week from today. On such intimation being given, the
petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents
within one week thereof. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-
adjudicate the show cause notice within a period of two weeks
after giving an opportunity of hearing.
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 the parties, are reserved.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti under Signatures of
Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2024/vp
