Delhi High Court
Tata Motors Limited vs Goods And Service Tax Officer (Gsto) ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29.05.2024
W.P.(C) 8105/2024 & CM APPL. 33337/2024, 33336/2024
TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER (GSTO) WARD 203 &
ORS. .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agrim Arora and Mr. Sumit
Khadaria, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Prateek Badhwar,
Ms. Shaguftha H. Badhwar, Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocates.
Ms. Leelawati Suman, SPC for R-2/ UOI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 30.04.2024 whereby the
impugned Show Cause Notice dated 29.01.2024 proposing a demand
of Rs. 23,82,40,692.00/- against the petitioner has been disposed of
and a demand including penalty has been created against the petitioner
for Financial Year 2018-19. The order has been passed under Section
73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
WP (C) 8105/2023
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
a detailed reply dated 21.03.2024, however, the impugned order dated
30.04.2024 does not take into consideration the replies submitted by
the Petitioner and is a cryptic order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that one of the
grounds in the Show Cause Notice was that an audit was conducted in
respect of the petitioner, however, there was no application of mind
by the proper officer for issuance of Show Cause Notice and Special
Audit Report was mechanically applied as one of the grounds in the
Show Cause Notice.
5. Perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 29.01.2024 shows that
the Department has simply enclosed the findings of the Special Audit
conducted by Auditors as per Section 66 of the Act. and no further
reasons were given in the said Show Cause Notice. The Special Audit
Report gave findings under separate headings i.e., Late filing of
GSTR-1; inaccurate declaration of turnover; difference in GSTR-1
and GSTR-3B; excess availment of ITC in GSTR-3B vis a vis GSTR-
2A and GST liability under reverse charge not reported. To the said
Show Cause Notice, detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner
giving response under each of the heads with supporting documents.
WP (C) 8105/2023
6. The impugned order, however, after recording the narration
records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is not satisfactory. It
merely states that "And whereas, it is noticed that the Taxpayer filed
reply/explanation within stipulated period is not satisfactory. Further,
another opportunity to submit reply and for the sake of natural justice
opportunity for Personal Hearing, as per provision of Section 75(4)
DGST Act, was also provided to the taxpayer by issuing
"REMINDER" through the GST portal. Now, the reply has been
examined and found not satisfactory. Hence demand is being created
in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 73(9) of the
CGST / DGST Act, 2017, as per discrepancies already conveyed
through SCN/ DRC-01." The Proper Officer has opined that the reply
is not satisfactory.
7. The observation in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 is not
sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 21.03.2024 filed by the
Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper
Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an
opinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory which ex-
facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply
submitted by the petitioner.
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
WP (C) 8105/2023
further documents/details.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024
cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is
remitted to the Proper Officer for 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 the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity
of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in
accordance with law 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 No. 9 of 2023 and 56 of 2023
with regard to the extension of time is left open.
13. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MAY 29, 2024/sk
WP (C) 8105/2023
