Allowed

Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner Dgst & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/16300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi set aside an impugned order finalizing a GST tax demand because it adopted a template explanation that the taxpayer's reply was 'not comprehensible,' thereby demonstrating an abject non-application of mind. The petition was allowed, and the order was quashed, leaving merits for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16 August 2024 was quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed. The parties' rights and contentions on merits were kept open. The respondents were directed to reconsi

Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited Vs the Assistant… — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16300/2024

¶4

SARENS HEAVY LIFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DGST & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Ms. Renu, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shivani Verma, Mr. Fareeduddin, Mr. Swagat Gupta and Mr. Prem Shankar Jha, Advs. for R-1

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶13

O R D E R % 04.12.2024

¶14

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final order referable to Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“ Act ”] which has come to be passed and in terms of which a Show Cause Notice [“ SCN ”] dated 30 May 2024 pertaining to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 has come to be finalized.

¶15

From the record, we gather that on receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had furnished a detailed reply on 12 June 2024. However and on consideration thereof, all that the Assistant Commissioner has chosen to observe is as follows: -

¶16

“In view of the above, as the taxpayer has failed to attend the personal hearing despite ample opportunity given and after having gone through the reply filed by the taxpayer in r/o each point no explanation could be given in want of personal hearing by the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 10/12/2024 at 11:03:59

¶19

taxpayer till date. Since, the reply filed by the taxpayer is not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous. Therefore, the proposed demand mentioned in the Show Cause Notice is confirmed.”

¶20

3. While dealing with an identically worded order passed by the said officer, we had in Xerox India Limited v Assistant Commissioner¹ held as follows:

¶21

“3.We are constrained to observe that the order as passed follows lines identical to those which have come before us and have fallen for our notice on earlier occasions. The Assistant Commissioner has clearly adopted a template where the only reason assigned is that the reply filed was “ not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous ”. This clearly exhibits an abject non-application of mind and the officer repeatedly employing identical phraseology to deal with such matters.

¶22

Despite caution having been sounded by us of the said language having attained the status of a template and the concerned officer having chosen to replicate an identical pattern while framing orders, in Indian Highways Management Company Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr. , we find that the officer has failed to make any amends.

¶23

Accordingly, while we are convinced that the impugned order being wholly unreasoned is liable to be set aside on this short score alone, we also require Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents to place a copy of this order before the Principal Commissioner concerned, so that an appropriate review of the manner in which such applications of assessees are adjudicated is undertaken.

¶24

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. For reasons assigned above, the impugned order of 16 August 2024 is quashed and set aside. We leave it open to the respondents to proceed further in terms of the earlier SCN issued in accordance with law and bearing in mind the reply which had been submitted by the writ petitioner.

¶25

All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.”

¶26

Accordingly, we for the aforesaid reasons, find ourselves unable to sustain the final order.

¶27

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 10/12/2024 at 11:03:59

¶28

We accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the order dated 25 August 2024. However, we leave it open for the respondents to finalize the SCN proceedings bearing in mind the reply as furnished by the writ petitioner. All rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits are kept open.

¶29

The writ petition shall stand disposed of on the above terms.

¶30

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶31

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶32

DECEMBER 04, 2024 sp

¶33

1 W.P.(C) No. 16451/2024 decided on 28 November 2024

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 10/12/2024 at 11:03:59

Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner Dgst & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. the Assistant Commissioner Dgst & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Raj Kumar Singh Rathore Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Sindhwani Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr.

Ajay Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 59(1),DELHI & Ors.

Ritu Singhal Vs Lions Public School and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs SL-3939F Col Mpc Rao (Retd.)

Abhishek Monga Vs Delhi Develoment Authority

Ca. Munish Mehta Vs Board of Discipline of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rspl Limited Vs Agarwal Home Products & Anr.

Archit Khandelwal Proprietor Archit Enterprises Vs the Union of India Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors.

The Deputy Director Direcortate of Enforcement Vs Chief Manager Syndicate Bank & Anr.

M/S Vishal Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax West Delhi

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.