Case Summary: Samsung India Electronics Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7351/2024
Date of Order: 21 May 2024
Court Name: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Summary of the Case: Samsung India Electronics Private Limited challenged an order dated 27 April 2024, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 30 January 2024. The SCN stemmed from a special audit alleging that Samsung had claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). Samsung argued that the audit process was flawed and that the Proper Officer did not consider their provided documents. The Delhi High Court found procedural issues with how the audit and subsequent decisions were handled and remitted the SCN back to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Facts of the Case:
· The petitioner, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, was issued a SCN dated 30 January 2024 following a special audit.
· The SCN alleged that Samsung had claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC).
· Samsung was dissatisfied with the audit's execution and the conclusions drawn by the Proper Officer based on the audit report.
· Samsung contended that the SCN and related audit documents were unsigned and therefore invalid.
Submission by Petitioner:
· Samsung's counsel argued that the Proper Officer did not adequately review the documents they submitted.
· It was highlighted that there was no excess ITC claimed, as a comparison between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B indicated.
· Samsung claimed that they had actually claimed less credit than what was available during the relevant financial years.
· Additionally, the petitioner stated that the audit was conducted under the presumption that the taxpayer was uncooperative.
Submission by Respondent:
· The respondents, represented by senior panel counsel, accepted the notice and the petition was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both parties.
Findings and Decision:
· The court observed that the Proper Officer did not sufficiently address the auditor’s observations in the impugned order.
· The Proper Officer's dismissal of the petitioner's reply as unsubstantial without reviewing the supporting documents was deemed improper.
· The court noted that further details should have been specifically requested from the petitioner if needed.
· Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order dated 27 April 2024 and remitted the SCN to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Conclusion:
· Samsung was granted 30 days to file an additional reply to the SCN.
· The Proper Officer must re-adjudicate the SCN, providing Samsung with an opportunity for a personal hearing, and issue a new speaking order in accordance with the law.
· The court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case and preserved all rights and contentions of the parties.
· The petition was disposed of, with the challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time remaining open.
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.
