Allowed

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

Delhi HC12 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/3619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court set aside an impugned ex-parte order creating a tax demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner could not file a reply because their GST registration was cancelled retrospectively, preventing portal access. The Court remitted the matter for re-adjudication after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.12.2023 set aside; matter remitted to Proper Officer for re-adjudication after giving opportunity of personal hearing.

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~29

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 12.03.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3619/2024 & CM APPL. 14951-52/2024

¶5

SINGLA ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR SHIV KUMAR SINGHAL ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. P.K. Gambhir and Mr. Akul Mangla, Advocates.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, Addl. Standing Counsel and Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocate

¶11

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates for R-4

¶12

CORAM:-

¶13

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

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Petitioner impugns order dated 22.12.2023, whereby the

¶17

W.P.(C) 3619/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 15:18:10

¶20

impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs. 36,63,454.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to the Act).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file a reply as he did not had access to the portal as the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled retrospectively.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent concedes to the said position that once the registration is cancelled, the tax-payer cannot access the portal. This fact is further fortified by the screenshots placed on record by the petitioner which show that in the dropdown menu of the assessment years, there is no entry shown and it is blank.

¶23

Perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that the Department has given separate headings excess claim Input Tax Credit [“ITC”], under declaration of ineligible ITC and ITC claim from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers.

¶24

The impugned order, however, after recording the narration, records that a demand as ex-parte is created. It merely states that: “ And whereas, it is noticed that the Taxpayer neither filed reply/explanation within stipulated period nor appeared for Personal

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

W.P.(C) 3619/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶27

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 15:18:10

¶28

Hearing before Proper Officer on the given date and time, Further, another opportunity to submit reply and in the larger interest 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, since no reply / explanation has been received from the taxpayer despite sufficient and repeated opportunities, which indicate that the taxpayer has nothing to say in the matter. ”

¶29

As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was unable to access the Show Cause Notice or reply to the said Show Cause Notices.

¶30

In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order which had been passed solely on account that petitioner had not file a reply cannot be sustained. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

¶31

Petitioner shall file reply to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks. 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.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

W.P.(C) 3619/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶34

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 15:18:10

¶35

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.

¶36

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶38

MARCH 12, 2024/ ’rs’ RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

W.P.(C) 3619/2024 Page 4 of 4

¶41

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:1 4.03.2024 15:18:10

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

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

Ananya Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Taneja Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mukesh Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Hari Narayan Meena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Shantanu Mandal Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S 3 Shades Events Trhough Its Proprietor Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Atul Kumar Garg Vs High Court of Delhi, through Registrar General

Manoj Diwakar Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S Rohan Book Company Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Jain Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato & Anr.

Sriaanshu Logistics through Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs (General)

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Anr.

Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited Vs 1. the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors.