Case Name: M/S JIG Brothers vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63 & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7637/2024 & CM APPL. 31784/2024
Date of Order: 27 May 2024
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Summary: M/S JIG Brothers filed a petition challenging an order dated 17 April 2024, which upheld a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27 December 2023, leading to a demand of Rs. 7,30,212.00 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings due to their accountant's maternity leave and therefore did not respond to the SCN. The High Court remitted the case to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication, granting the petitioner four weeks to file a reply and ensuring an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Facts of the Case:
· The petitioner, M/S JIG Brothers, received a Show Cause Notice dated 27 December 2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 7,30,212.00.
· The SCN alleged excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B compared to the tax on inward supplies declared by the suppliers.
· The petitioner’s accountant responsible for GST compliance was on a 12-week maternity leave, leading to the petitioner being unaware of the SCN and failing to respond.
Submissions by the Petitioner:
· The petitioner's accountant, who managed GST compliance, was on maternity leave.
· As a result, the petitioner did not receive the SCN in time to respond to it.
Submissions by the Respondent:
· The respondent issued the SCN on the grounds of excess ITC claims and discrepancies between the ITC availed and the tax declared by suppliers.
Court's Findings:
· The order dated 17 April 2024 was passed ex-parte due to the petitioner's non-response.
· The petitioner’s unawareness of the proceedings was due to their accountant’s maternity leave.
· The court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the SCN.
Decision:
The court set aside the impugned order dated 17 April 2024 and remitted the case to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was given four weeks to reply to the SCN, and the Proper Officer was instructed to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi remitted the case to the Proper Officer due to the petitioner’s unawareness of the proceedings caused by their accountant's maternity leave. The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the SCN, emphasizing procedural fairness and the need to consider unique circumstances affecting a party’s ability to respond
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.