Remanded

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act that created a tax demand. Noting the order was cryptic and did not consider the petitioner's reply regarding an entry error, the Court remitted the matter for a fresh speaking order and a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.12.2023 set aside; matter remitted to proper officer for fresh speaking order and personal hearing.

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 12.02.2024

¶4

+ W.P.(C) 208/2024 & CM APPLS. 977/2024

¶5

OSWAL AGENCIES PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.. ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Appellant: Mr.Anurag Soan, Mr. Shrey Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Shivam, Advocates for UOI, Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC, CBIC, Mr. V.K. Attri, Advocate for Respondent no. 3 & 4.

¶10

CORAM:-

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner impugns order dated 05.12.2023, whereby an order under Section 73 of this Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been passed and demand is created against the petitioner. It is noticed that a Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner on 25.10.2023.

¶15

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order records that no proper reply has been submitted and the reply stated to be

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 5.02.2024 15:25:05

¶18

W.P.(C) 208/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶19

improper was not found to be satisfactory. We note that the order is cryptic order without any reasons and without taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that on account of an error, details of Impugned Tax Credit were inadvertently mentioned in column IV (A) (3) instead of column IV (A) (5). None of the averments of the petitioner have been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2023. Accordingly, we are of the view that said order cannot be sustained and the matter calls for a remit.

¶21

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the proper officer to pass a fresh speaking order taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner. An opportunity of personal hearing shall also be granted to the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered, nor commented upon the merits of the contention of either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶22

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶24

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 12, 2024/AB

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 5.02.2024 15:25:05

¶28

W.P.(C) 208/2024 Page 2 of 2

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Jyoti Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Vidya Vihar Cghs Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors.

M/S Subhash Chand Kathuria Vs Punjab National Bank

Arjun Singh Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Samraj Polytex Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Anr.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S Hcil Comtel Ltd.

Jitender Kumar Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Tasha Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Anand International and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Customs

Gs Exim International LLP through Its Designated Partner Bhakti Pada Ghosh Vs Commissioner, Central Excise / (Gst) Appeals-I, through Joint Commissioner & Anr.

Saransh Garg Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Pansari Polymers and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt. Ltd.