Allowed

Retrovis Fashion Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato

Delhi HC13 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice and demand order under Section 74 of the DGST Act for FY 2020-21. Setting aside the impugned order due to violation of audi alteram partem, the Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.02.2022 and 29.03.2022 under Section 74 of the DGST Act are set aside. Petitioner must reply to the SCN within two weeks.

Retrovis Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~57

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11190/2024

¶4

RETROVIS FASHION PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II / AVATO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Goel, Adv. for Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

O R D E R

13.08.2024

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2022 (hereafter the impugned SCN ) and the order dated 29.03.2022 (hereafter the impugned order ), passed under Section 74 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act ) in respect of the financial year 2020-21.

¶12

In terms of the impugned order, a demand of ₹98,34,425/- has been confirmed. The petitioner states that his GST registration was cancelled on 13.01.2020. Further, the Director of the petitioner company, who was aware of the passwords of the GST portal (Sh. Vikas Gupta), expired shortly thereafter on 16.11.2020.

¶13

In the given circumstances, the petitioner claims that he did not have access to its GST portal.

¶14

The respondent issued the impugned SCN under Section 74 of the

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2024 at 12:26:31

¶17

DGST Act, proposing a demand of ₹98,34,425/- including interest and penalty for the financial year 2020-21.

¶18

The petitioner claims that he did not receive the impugned SCN. Further, it had stopped its business and therefore, had no occasion to examine the GST portal which, in any case, it could not do for want of the password. In these circumstances, the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner or affording him any further opportunity of hearing.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner company has effectively closed its business and has not carried out any business for the last four years. Thus, there was no question of any output liability. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh.

¶20

In view of the above, we allow the present petition and, the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the DGST Act is set aside.

¶21

The petitioner may file a reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date.

¶22

The adjudicating authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶24

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶25

AUGUST 13, 2024/ cl

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2024 at 12:26:31

Retrovis Fashion Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Retrovis Fashion Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishakha Arya Vs Union of India & Ors.

Reetwige Rishav Vs Union of India and Anr.

Neelkanth Steel and Alloys Vs Asstt. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 49(1), & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Khairun Nisa Vs Delhi Jal Board and Ors. & Anr.

Vinod Garg Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Nautiyal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mittal Footcare India Vs Bata India Limited

Container Corporation of India Limited Vs M/S Shivhare Road Lines

M/S Star Enterprises through Its Proprietor Sh. Harsh Vs Commissioner of Delhi GST and Anr.

Nutech Appliances Vs Superintendent RANGE-35, Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

M/S Empower Inc. Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax West Delhi

Ram Milan and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others