Delhi and District Cricket Association vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Delhi and District Cricket Association – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax – Respondent

Table of Content
1. flaws in the impugned order and show cause notice (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's claim for refund due to excess service tax payment (Para 4)
3. procedural infractions noted in the adjudication process (Para 9 , 10)
4. legal obligation for interest payment on delayed refunds (Para 11 , 12)
5. final directions for payment of refund and interest (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

[Physical court hearing/hybrid hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

1. The matter was listed, in the first instance, on 13.09.2021, when we had recorded the following after Mr Puneet Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, was heard in support of the instant action:

"W.P.(C) 9628/2021 & CM No.29755/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order]

2. The instant writ petition is directed against the Order-in-Original no.01/2020-21 dated 30.06.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax (GST), and the show cause notice, dated 20.02.2020.

3. Mr. Puneet Agarwal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, the impugned order and show cause notice are flawed, broadly, for the following reasons:

(i) The impug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTRAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJUDelhi and District Cricket Association – AppellantVersusAssistant Commissioner of Central Tax – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Delhi and District Cricket Association – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax – Respondent