The Delhi High Court has set aside an order imposing a tax demand of Rs.17,09,10,077/-, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration due to the lack of reasons in the original order.
The petitioner, Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024, issued by the respondent, which held the petitioner liable for a substantial tax amount. The petitioner also sought to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 27.12.2023, and the impugned Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023.
The petitioner, represented by Yogendra Aldak and Kunal Kapoor, argued that the impugned order was issued without jurisdiction and lacked findings or reasons for the tax demand. It was also claimed that the order was barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
It was submitted that while the time limit for assessment under the CGST Act had been extended, no corresponding extension was made under the DGST Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, arguing that it was not within the scope of powers under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed that the notification was issued after the COVID-19 disruption period had ended and without any extenuating circumstances that would justify its issuance.
The petitioner further contended that the impugned order was unreasoned and issued without application of mind. The detailed reply submitted by the petitioner was dismissed with the vague remark that it was “partially not satisfied.”
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, directing it to re-examine the reply filed by the petitioner to the impugned Show Cause Notice and to take an informed decision within eight weeks. The adjudicating authority was also directed to examine whether the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was barred by limitation.
Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC, and Saumya Singh, counsel for Respondent No.1, along with Mr. Vinay Yadav, SPC for UOI, represented the respondents.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
