Remanded

M/S Services International v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 May 2024W.P.(C)/6696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that in the interest of justice, the impugned order upholding a GST demand and penalty was set aside. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for readjudication after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.04.2024 set aside; matter remitted for readjudication after personal hearing; reply to Show Cause Notice to be filed within 30 days.

M/S Services International Vs Union of India and Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Judgment delivered on: 10.05.2024

¶3

W.P.(C) 6696/2024 & CM APPL.27917-18/2024

¶4

M/S SERVICES INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents

¶7

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur and Ms. Pritika Nagpal, Advocates. Mr. Vinish Phogat, Advocate (Through VC).

¶9

CORAM:-

¶10

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

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner impugns order dated 18.04.2024 whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2023, proposing a demand of Rs 3,86,25,289.00 against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty had been raised against the Petitioner for Financial Year 2018-19. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

W.P.(C) 6696/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶16

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶17

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner received a Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2023 and made a request on 06.01.2024 for extension of time to file reply on the ground that Accountant has suffered Jaundice and was not attending the office. He further submits that thereafter no information was received as to whether the adjournment requested had been accepted or declined and straightway the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 was passed.

¶19

He further submits that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter the Show Cause Notice be adjudicated in accordance with law. He further submits that this is without prejudice to his challenge to the Notification No.09/2023.

¶20

The observations and conclusion in the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 records that “ the taxpayer has filed their adjournment for 1^st week of February and personal hearing after three days online on portal on dated 06-01-2024 but non appeared nor any document uploaded by the Tax prayer till date. And whereas, on examination of the reply/documents furnished by the tax prayer, it has been observed

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

W.P.(C) 6696/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶23

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶24

that since the reply is devoid of merits without any justification or proper reconciliation, the demand raised in SCN/DRC-01 is hereby upheld along with penalty “

¶25

The impugned order dated 18.04.2024, mentions the date of personal as 18.04.2024 itself, however, the summary of proceedings does not show that any notice of personal hearing was issued to the petitioner after issuance of the subject Show Cause Notice.

¶26

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for readjudication and the Show Cause Notice is restored on the file of the proper officer.

¶27

Petitioner shall file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days. 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.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

W.P.(C) 6696/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶30

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶31

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.

¶32

The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 with regard to the initial extension of time is left open.

¶33

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶34

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶35

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶36

MAY 10, 2024/NA

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

W.P.(C) 6696/2024 Page 4 of 4

¶39

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

M/S Services International v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Services International v. Union of India and 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

Sanjiv Kumar Vashist Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar & Anr.

National Federaion of Farmers Procurement Processing & Retailing Cooperativs of India Ltd. Nacop Vs Union of India & Ors. & Anr.

Lord Krishna Tradexim LLP (Pan AABCL4428K) (as Successor in Interest of Lord Krishna Tradexim (P) L Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1) Delhi & Ors.

Chandershehar Malhotra Vs North Delhi Power Ltd.

Naresh Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 43(6) Delhi & Ors.

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

Maa Jhandewali Co-Operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, & Ors.

Bhavna Luthra L/H of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor of M/S. Hunny Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner, Range -8, Cgst Delhi & Anr.

Ms Sherin Rizwan Vs Special Commissioner Trade and Tax Department and Ors.

M/S Usha Industries through Its Partner Mr Sandeep Singhal Vs Assistant Cominissioner Ward 82 and Another

Swastik Traders Vs Commissioner of Vat and Anr.

M/S Kvs Industries through Its Proprietor Mr. Krishana Yadav Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

M/S Ace Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.