Delhi High Court
Manoj Diwakar vs Union Of India And Anr. on 11 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.03.2024
,,,,,,,,,,
+ W.P.(C) 3237/2024
MANOJ DIWAKAR ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Aditya Kumar
Yadav, Mr. Nikhil Verma, Mr. Gaurav
Chaudhry, Mr. Arpit Bamal, Mr. Vaibhav
Chaudhry, Mr. Alok Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Samridhi
Vats, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns orders dated 26.12.2023 whereby the Show
Cause Notice dated 26.09.2023 issued by Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant
Commissioner has been disposed of. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned orders annexes two orders; one
passed by Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner for Range
84/85/300 and other passed by Mr. Amit Kumar, GST Officer for
Range 89 and both pertain to the same tax period July, 2017- March,
2018.
2. Learned counsel submits that earlier the Scrutiny Notice dated
13.07.2020 was received for the same tax period July, 2017 to March,
2018 which was duly responded on 19.07.2020. Thereafter, no
information was received by petitioner and subsequently the impugned
Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 has been received.
3. Learned counsel submits that it was informed by reply dated
28.09.2023 that petitioner had earlier responded to the notice of 2020
and the same may be referred to. As per the petitioner, a fraud was
committed on the petitioner by the tax consultant who was engaged by
the petitioner.
4. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 26.12.2023 issued by Mr.
Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner and the GST officer, Mr. Amit
Kumar show that the same do not contain any reasoning. The case of
the petitioner that fraud was committed by the tax consultant is not
even adverted to in the said orders. Further, the orders do not have any
CRN number, nor is the name of any assessee mentioned. The order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar states that
no reply has been received and as such it is assumed that tax payer has
nothing to state. The order passed by the GST officer, Mr. Amit
Kumar records that reply/explanation submitted by the tax payer
within time was examined and found not satisfactory.
5. Clearly, there appears to be complete non-application of mind
to the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the said orders dated
26.12.2023 cannot be sustained and are set aside with an order of
remit. Accordingly, the proper officer shall once again re-adjudicate
the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 read with Scrutiny Notice
dated 13.07.2020 as also the replies filed by the petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, petitioner is granted further two weeks' time to file a
supplementary reply to the Show Cause Notice as well as the Scrutiny
Notice. Thereafter, the proper officer shall pass a fresh speaking after
giving an opportunity of personally hearing to the petitioner.
7. It is clarified this Court has neither considered, not commented
on the merits of the contentions of either party. All rights and
contentions of parties are reserved.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 11, 2024/ss RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
