Can demand order be passed
Case Title | NTT India Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri |
Citation | 2022 (4) GSTPanacea 342 HC Delhi W.P.(C). 6740 /2022 |
Judgement Date | 28-April-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Puneet Agarwal Purvi Sinha Ketan Jain Hemlata Rawat Chetan K Shukla Ayushman Vatsyayana |
Council for Respondent | Chiranjiv Kumar Mukesh Sachdeva Anuj Aggarwal Sanyam Suri Ayushi Bansal Aishwarya Sharma |
Section | Section 161 of the Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Assesses |
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition will be examined by the concerned officer by treating it as representation. Pending the disposal of the representation, no precipitate action will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.12.2017
FACTS OF THE CASE
The principal grievance of the petitioner is that via the impugned order dated 24.07.2021, respondent no.4, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, DGST has raised a demand concerning tax amounting to Rs. 18.06 crores along with interest and 100% penalty on account of the purported difference between the contents of two returns i.e., GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.
According to Mr Puneet Agarwal, the difference arose on account of one invoice, which was inadvertently not filed with the return [i.e., GSTR-3B] submitted for March 2019.
Mr Puneet Agarwal says that the error was corrected in the subsequent W.P.(C)6740/2022 Page 3 of 4 return filed for April 2019
It is Mr Puneet Agarwal’s contention that the requisite tax, along with interest, has been deposited in line with the respondents/revenue’s own circular dated 29.12.2017
It is, therefore, contended by Mr Puneet Agarwal that if this aspect is taken into account i.e., that the petitioner corrected the error in April 2019, almost nothing will be payable by the petitioner, insofar as the tax and interest are concerned.
Can demand order be passed
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition will be examined by the concerned officer by treating it as representation.
The concerned officer will grant opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner. For this purpose, the concerned officer will communicate the date, time and venue of at which hearing will be granted. In case it is not possible to conduct the hearing physically, a link will be sent for hearing via video-conferencing mechanism.
Pending the disposal of the representation, no precipitate action will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.12.2017.
The concerned officer will furnish a copy of the decision rendered on the petitioner’s representation, to the petitioner.
In the event the decision arrived at by the concerned officer is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, no precipitate action will be taken for two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the decision by the petitioner.
Needless to add, the concerned officer will endeavour to dispose of the petitioner’s representation, which is in the form of the writ petition filed before us, expeditiously, though not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the order
Can demand order be passed
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Before court conclude, court may also like to bring to the notice of the Department of Revenue that the orders which are passed carry endorsement which are spread right across the pages on which they are transcribed, making it difficult to read the orders.
In fact, this kind of endorsement will also make it difficult for persons who are visually impaired to read the orders, as their applications may not be able to pick up the contents of the order due to the endorsement made on it. Such endorsement or mark could be affixed on the order where there is no writing; the space ordinarily available on the left or right-hand side corner of the order or at the foot of the order would perhaps serve the purpose.
Accordingly, court request Mr Anuj Aggarwal to place the order passed by us, before the CEO of Goods and Service Tax Network.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: