Disposed

Jitendra Mishra (Erstwhile Partner of M/S. Psrj Jewellers) & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 46, Zone 3, Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/11345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Section 73 GST adjudication order confirming demand for excess input tax credit and ITC from dealers whose registration was cancelled retrospectively. Finding the order unreasoned and unresponsive to the petitioner's submissions, the court set it aside, remanded for fresh adjudication with opportunity to be heard, and allowed filing of additional documents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jitendra Mishra (Erstwhile Partner of M/S. Psrj… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11345/2024 and CM No.46975/2024

¶4

JITENDRA MISHRA (ERSTWHILE PARTNER OF M/S. PSRJ JEWELLERS) & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Mr Sanjay Sharma and Ms Srishti Sharma, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 46, ZONE 3, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Udit Malik, ASC (Civil) for GNCTD/R-1 & 2 with Mr Vishal Chanda, Advocate.

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R % 10.09.2024

¶9

CM No.46974/2024

¶10

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 11345/2024 and CM No.46975/2024

¶13

Issue notice.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice.

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 28.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 /Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.

¶16

In terms of the impugned order, the demand proposed under the Show

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. 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 30/09/2024 at 11:59:50

¶18

Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN ) was confirmed.

¶19

The impugned SCN had proposed the demand, essentially, on two grounds. First, that there was an excess claim for input tax credit (ITC) as was apparent from the returns available on the portal and the reconciliation turnover in GSTR-9. Second, that the petitioner had availed ITC in respect of supplies from the suppliers, whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.

¶20

The petitioner filed a response to the impugned SCN on 21.10.2023. He submitted that it had claimed ITC as was reflecting in Form GSTR-2A, but the same was not fully reflected in Table-8A of GSTR-9. The petitioner contends that there is a technical error. The petitioner also enclosed therewith the reconciliation statement in support of its contention.

¶21

Insofar as ITC availed in respect of supplies from the dealers whose registration has been cancelled, the petitioner submitted that the transactions with the said dealers were genuine and they were registered at the material time. The petitioner also stated that ITC was availed on the basis of tax on outward supplies as reflected in the returns filed by the dealers. The petitioner was issued a reminder notice dated 04.12.2023 issued by respondent no.1. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another reply dated 15.12.2023, which was on similar lines as earlier reply dated 21.10.2023. The impugned order is ex facie unreasoned and has not considered any of the submissions made by the petitioner. The adjudicating authority has rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner with the observations that it “ is found to be vague and miserably fails to counter the demands mentioned in DRC-01”. Additionally, the proper officer noted that no invoices,

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 30/09/2024 at 11:59:50

¶24

certificates, or proof of payment had been attached in support of his claim for excess ITC. The petitioner’s contention that it had not claimed any excess ITC and the difference was only on account of a technical glitch, was not addressed.

¶25

Since the impugned order is unreasoned, we consider it apposite to set aside the same on the aforesaid ground. It is so directed.

¶26

The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering afresh after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 12. The petitioner is also at liberty to file additional documents in support of its contentions, within a period of two weeks from date.

¶27

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.

¶28

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶29

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶30

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 30/09/2024 at 11:59:50

Jitendra Mishra (Erstwhile Partner of M/S. Psrj Jewellers) & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 46, Zone 3, Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jitendra Mishra (Erstwhile Partner of M/S. Psrj Jewellers) & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 46, Zone 3, Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeeta Bakshi & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Urmila Jaiswal Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Air Force Naval Housing Board Vs Central Bank of India Branch Air Force Station & Ors.

Mmtc Pamp India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs the Local Committee South District & Ors.

Akhil Dilli Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Regd & Anr. Vs Govt.of N.C.T.Delhi & Ors.

Sanjay Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Msc Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Osm Projects Private Limited, through Its Director Surender Sharma & Anr. Vs Union of India through Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Cbic Departme

Sangeeta Bakshi & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Kundan Trading Company Vs Pr. Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.

D K Frieght Carrier Proprietor Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Infiniti Retail Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Association of Power Producers Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited & Ors.