In a recent case, the Delhi High Court directed readjudication with respect to the demand created under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without providing the opportunity for clarifying the documents produced by the petitioner.
The petitioner Larsen And Toubaro Limited And Passavant Energy And Environment Gmbh Jv filed the appeal against the order of demand of RS 55,23,524.00. The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
As per the Show Cause Notice, the Department has given separate headings i.e., excess claim Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under declaration of ineligible ITC and ITC claimed from canceled dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers. To the said Show Cause Notice, a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner giving full disclosures under each of the hea
The order mentioned that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is not satisfactory. It merely states that “Now, since the reply/explanation submitted by the taxpayer is not satisfactory. In view of aforesaid circumstances, the undersigned is left with no other option to create demand ex-parte for the tax amount, in accordance with the provisions of CGST / DGST Act & Rules, 2017, as per discrepancies already conveyed through SCN/ DRC-01.”
The proper officer did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner . However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
After reviewing the facts and arguments of both parties, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, set aside the order and 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.
P. K. Gambhir, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Deepak Kumar Shrivastva, Mr. Dalip Kumar Shrivastva, Mr. Sumit Shrivastva & Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocates appeared for the petitioner and Rajeev Aggarwal appeared for the respondents.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
