Taxpayerโ€™s Reply cannot be dismissed by proper officer without proper justisicstion


Taxpayerโ€™s Reply cannot be dismissed by proper officer without proper justisicstion


The case involves a dispute over a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the tax authorities, proposing a demand of ๐‘๐ฌ.11,50,530.00 against the petitioner. The key points of the judgment are:

๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ž ๐‘๐š๐ข๐ฌ๐ž๐:
The petitioner challenged the order that disposed of the SCN, which included a penalty. The order was passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

1. The petitioner had submitted detailed replies to the SCN, but the order did not consider these replies and was deemed cryptic.
2. The SCN raised several issues, including under-declaration of output tax and excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
3The Proper Officer stated that the ๐’‘๐’†๐’•๐’Š๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’๐’†๐’“’๐’” ๐’“๐’†๐’‘๐’๐’Š๐’†๐’” ๐’˜๐’†๐’“๐’† ๐’๐’๐’• ๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’‘๐’†๐’“๐’๐’š ๐’‡๐’Š๐’๐’†๐’…, leading to the creation of a demand for tax/interest.

๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ:
The Delhi High Court found that the Proper Officer did not consider the petitioner’s detailed replies and supporting documents.
The court held that the Proper Officer should have at least considered the replies on their merits before forming an opinion.
Since the Proper Officer ๐’…๐’Š๐’… ๐’๐’๐’• ๐’‹๐’–๐’”๐’•๐’Š๐’‡๐’š ๐’˜๐’‰๐’š ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’“๐’†๐’‘๐’๐’Š๐’†๐’” ๐’˜๐’†๐’“๐’† ๐’…๐’†๐’†๐’Ž๐’†๐’… ๐’Š๐’Ž๐’‘๐’“๐’๐’‘๐’†๐’“๐’๐’š ๐’‡๐’Š๐’๐’†๐’…, ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’„๐’๐’–๐’“๐’• ๐’”๐’†๐’• ๐’‚๐’”๐’Š๐’…๐’† ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’Š๐’Ž๐’‘๐’–๐’ˆ๐’๐’†๐’… ๐’๐’“๐’…๐’†๐’“ ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’“๐’†๐’Ž๐’Š๐’•๐’•๐’†๐’… ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐‘บ๐‘ช๐‘ต ๐’‡๐’๐’“ ๐’“๐’†-๐’‚๐’…๐’‹๐’–๐’…๐’Š๐’„๐’‚๐’•๐’Š๐’๐’.

The court emphasized the need for the Proper Officer to consider the taxpayer’s replies and supporting documents before making a decision.
The petitioner has been granted 30 days to file a further reply to the SCN.ย A fresh speaking order must be passed by the Proper Officer after a personal hearing, in accordance with the law and within the prescribed time under Section 75 (3) of the Act.
The court did not comment on the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties reserved.
The challenge to Notification No. 56 of 2023 regarding the extension of time remains open.

This judgment highlights the importance of due process and theย consideration of allย submitted documents andย  replies in theย adjudicationย of tax-related disputes.

๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช ๐˜๐˜Š: ๐˜๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Ž๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช ๐˜๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ข ๐˜๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜บ ๐˜“๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜๐˜ด ๐˜Ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ด ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜›๐˜ข๐˜น ๐˜–๐˜ง๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ 203 [๐˜ž.๐˜—. (๐˜Š)- 7417/2024 & ๐˜Š๐˜” ๐˜ˆ๐˜—๐˜—๐˜“. 30942-43/2024 ๐˜ฅ๐˜ต. 22 ๐˜”๐˜ข๐˜บ 2024]

The Copy Of the Order is as Under:

FCA Namrata LIK