Allowed

Abbhishek Tubes Limited through Its Director Nipun Bhardwaj v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/9310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court set aside an unreasoned impugned order under Section 73 of the CGST Act assessing excess input tax credit. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the matter and decide afresh within eight weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; officer directed to reconsider response and decide afresh within eight weeks after hearing.

Abbhishek Tubes Limited through Its Director Nipun… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9310/2024

¶4

ABBHISHEK TUBES LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NIPUN BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr A.K. Babbar, Mr Ankur Sethi and Mr Bharat Tirpathi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Udit Malik, ASC (Civil) for GNCTD with Mr Vishal Chanda, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Ms Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Mr Hussain Adil Taqvi and Ms Usha Jamnal, Advocates for R-4.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 10.07.2024

¶8

CM APPL. 38131/2024

¶9

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) 9310/2024 and CM APPL. 38130/2024

¶12

Issue notice.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept notice.

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning an order dated 30.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act and SGST Act respectively), whereby

¶15

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 04/07/2025 at 00:49:52

¶16

an aggregate demand of ₹9,02,77,804/- [CGST ₹4,51,38,902/- including interest and SGST ₹4,51,38,902/- including interest] has been raised.

¶17

The petitioner also impugns a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, extending the time for making an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unreasoned and completely ignores the reply furnished by the petitioner. 8. The Annexure to the impugned order notes that the petitioner had furnished its reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 (hereafter the SCN ) but the same was not found to be satisfactory. However, no specific reason has been provided as to why the petitioner’s reply was not accepted. 9. The petitioner was issued the SCN which called upon the petitioner to show cause why the demand of ₹9,02,77,804/- not be raised. It was alleged that excess input tax credit (ITC) had been availed by the petitioner. The SCN also referred Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, and stated that a registered taxpayer is entitled to take credit for ITC on supply of goods and services subject to the condition that the tax charged in respect of such supplies has, in fact, been paid to the Government. It was stated that the petitioner had availed of ITC in respect of supplies from taxpayers whose registrations were cancelled before the date of the invoices.

¶18

The petitioner responded to the SCN raising several contentions, inter alia , stating that supplies were received from suppliers who were registered with the Department at the time when the transactions were entered into with them. The petitioner also referred to various decisions in support of his contention that it was entitled to avail of the ITC and has rightly availed the same.

¶19

¶20

As noted above, the impugned order does not specify any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s contention. We find merit in the petitioner’s contention that the impugned order is an unreasoned order. It, therefore, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶21

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The concerned officer is directed to consider the petitioner’s response to the SCN and decide afresh within a period of eight weeks from date after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are disposed of.

¶22

It is clarified that this order would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the notification issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act at a later date, if necessary. All contentions of the parties are reserved.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SACHIN DATTA, J

JULY 10, 2024 RK

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 04/07/2025 at 00:49:52

Abbhishek Tubes Limited through Its Director Nipun Bhardwaj v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbhishek Tubes Limited through Its Director Nipun Bhardwaj v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & 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

Param Singh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home & Ors.

Karan Ahuja Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Vs Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes & Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Faizyab Masjid through Its Khadim Insad Ali Vs Religious Committee and Ors.

Cilji Jain Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Dr. Vishal Phogat Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn.

Abhishek Gusian Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dinesh Gupta & Anr. Vs Union of India through Its Chief Comissioner Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

Jeet Sehgal Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Sh. Jai Singh Rana Vs Union of India & Ors.

R N Garg and Sons through Proprietor Aman Garg Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Rajdhani Trading Co. Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Gold Step Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Itc Limited