Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Manoj Kumar Ohri, JJ.
M/s Ntt India Private Limited (formerly Known As Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd.) - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Puneet Agarwal, Advocate, Purvi Sinha, Advocate, Ketan Jain, Advocate, Hemlata Rawat, Advocate, Chetan K. Shukla, Advocate, Ayushman Vatsyayana, Advocate, Chiranjiv Kumar, Advocate, Mukesh Sachdeva, Advocate, Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, Sanyam Suri, Advocate, Ayushi Bansal, Advocate, Aishwarya Sharma, Advocate
Fair representation process and accessibility of orders are crucial in tax dispute resolution.
Headnote:
DGST - Tax Demand - Section 161 of the DGST act - 29.12.2017 Circular - Representation and Decision Process
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from a tax demand raised by the assistant Commissioner, DGST due to a difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner claimed that the error was corrected in a subsequent return and the tax, along with interest, was deposited in line with the revenue's circular dated 29.12.2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the concerned officer to examine the petitioner's contentions as a representation, grant an opportunity of hearing, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Pending the decision, no precipitate action was to be taken against the petitioner. The court also highlighted the difficulty in reading orders due to endorsements and requested the CEO of Goods and Service Tax Network to address the issue.
Issues: Tax demand discrepancy, Corrective action by the petitioner, Representation process, Difficulty in reading orders
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair representation process and highlighted the importance of clear and accessible orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the representation process and addressing the issue of reading orders.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J . - CM aPPL. 20460/2022
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6740/2022 & CM aPPL. 20459/2022 [application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Chiranjiv Kumar accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/UOI.
2.2. Mr anuj aggarwal accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 4/revenue.
3. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. The substantial prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:
'i. To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to Respondents to quash and set aside impugned order dated 24.07.2021 [annexure P/19]: and/or
ii. Issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside impugned show cause notice and summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 [annexure P/18]; and/or
iii. Issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside impugned notice issued in Form aSMT-10 [annexure P/17]; and/or
iv. Issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and set aside of the impugned proceedings; and/or
v. Issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no. 4 for deciding the application for Rectification under section 161 of the DGST act dated 24.03.2022 [annexure P/23(Colly)]; and/or
vi. to stay the operation of the Impugned Order dated 24.07.2021 and prohibit the Respondent from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner till the final disposal of the present Writ Petition: and/or
vii. to grant costs of this Petition..'
4.1. at the outset, Mr Puneet agarwal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that he does not wish to press prayer clause (vii), which relates to costs.
5. 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.
5.1. 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.
5.2. Mr Puneet agarwal says that the error was corrected in the subsequent return filed for april 2019.
6. 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. (See page 56 of the case file.)
6.1. 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.
7. Mr anuj aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 4/revenue, says that the concerned officer will examine the contentions raised by the petitioner, along with the necessary documents filed in support of the contentions.
7.1. It is Mr anuj aggarwal's submission that if the concerned officer is satisfied, requisite directions will be issued.
7.2. It is further stated that in case there is difficulty in uploading the orders on the web portal, orders will be passed by the concerned authority in the manual mode.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, with the following directions:
(i) The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition will be examined by the concerned officer by treating it as representation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Pending the disposal of
