Case Summary: Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7443/2024
Date of Order: 22 May 2024
Court Name: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Summary of the Case: Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited contested an order dated 26 April 2024, which concluded a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 2 December 2023. The SCN, following an audit, demanded a substantial amount from Mitsubishi for alleged discrepancies in their tax filings. Mitsubishi argued that their detailed responses to the SCN were not adequately considered. The High Court of Delhi identified procedural shortcomings in the handling of Mitsubishi's replies and remanded the SCN to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication.
Facts of the Case:
· The petitioner, Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited, was issued a SCN on 2 December 2023.
· The SCN proposed a demand of Rs 6,27,53,208 against Mitsubishi, citing issues such as under-declaration of output tax, reconciliation discrepancies, and excess ITC claims.
· Mitsubishi provided detailed replies to the SCN on 2 January 2024 and to a reminder notice on 23 April 2024.
Submission by Petitioner:
· Mitsubishi's counsel argued that the Proper Officer did not properly consider their detailed replies and supporting documents.
· It was claimed that the audit and subsequent order were flawed and that the SCN was not justified.
· The petitioner emphasized that their business does not involve items attracting cess, contradicting some of the audit’s findings.
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 found that the Proper Officer's order did not adequately address the detailed replies submitted by Mitsubishi.
· The order was deemed cryptic and lacking in proper consideration of the petitioner's explanations and documents.
· The court noted that the Proper Officer should have sought further details from Mitsubishi if required, which was not done.
· Consequently, the impugned order dated 26 April 2024 was set aside, and the SCN was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Conclusion:
· Mitsubishi was granted 30 days to file an additional reply to the SCN.
· The Proper Officer must re-adjudicate the SCN, allowing Mitsubishi a personal hearing and issuing a new speaking order in accordance with the law.
· The court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case and reserved all rights and contentions of the parties.
The petition was disposed of, with the challenge to Notification No. 56 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.
