Delhi High Court
Svelte Furnitures Private Limited vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 95 ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 13964/2023 & CM APPL. 3411/2024 & 3413/2024
SVELTE FURNITURES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO
WARD 95 DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha and Mr.
Ranesh Mankotia, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Shaguftha Hameed, Mr. Prateek Badhwar, Ms.
Samridhi Vats, Advocates for Mr. Rajeev
Aggarwal, ASC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the
petition is taken up for hearing today. Next date of 18.03.2024 is
cancelled.
2. Original record of hearing on the Show Cause Notice has been
produced in Court and the same has been perused.
3. Petitioner impugns Show Cause Notice dated 06.09.2023 as
also second Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 seeking to create a
demand under Section 73 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The case of the petitioner is that the Show Cause Notices are bereft of
any details and are not in inconsonance with law. Reference may be
had to order dated 15.12.2023 whereby the Show Cause Notice dated
06.09.2023 has been withdrawn by the department and only Show
Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 was to be adjudicated.
4. Learned counsel for respondent informs that by order dated
31.12.2023, said Show Cause Notice has also been adjudicated upon
and an order passed. Copy of the order has been placed on record by
learned counsel for the petitioner along with CM APPL. 3413/2024.
5. Perusal of order dated 31.12.2023 shows that the demand has
been created against the petitioner holding that the reply filed by the
petitioner was non comprehensive and was not supported by sufficient
document and the tax payer could not explain/justify its reply.
6. Reference may be had to the reply filed by the petitioner to the
Show Cause Notice which shows that the reply is a detailed
comprehensive reply adverting to each of the points raised in the
Show Cause Notice.
7. Ex-facie it is apparent that the proper officer has not taken into
consideration the reply filed by the petitioner while passing the cryptic
order dated 31.12.2023. Consequently, we are of the view that the
order dated 31.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set
aside. The matter is remitted to the proper officer to re-adjudicate the
Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 by taking into account the
detailed reply filed by the petitioner thereto. In case any further detail
or clarification is required from the petitioner, the proper officer shall
intimate the petitioner qua the same and petitioner shall thereafter
promptly furnish his explanation/reply/document to this query, if any
raised.
8. The proper officer shall pass a speaking order after giving an
opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner within four weeks.
9. The issue of jurisdiction as well as validity of the Show Cause
Notice dated 29.09.2023 is left open.
10. Needless to state, in case petitioner is still aggrieved by any
order, petitioner shall be entitled to avail of such remedy as may be
available in law.
11. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2024 RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
ss
