Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Tata Play Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I. Factual Background
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Tata Play Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 30th November, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’) issued by the Respondent- Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Department of Trade and Taxes Office, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the Respondent-Department’), pertaining to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021.
3. Further, the petition also challenges the consequent demand order dated 28th February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) arising from the impugned SCN whereby the Respondent has demanded a payment of Rs.5,63,52,147/- as tax along with Rs. 4,22,64,110/- towards interest and Rs. 56,35,214/- towards penalty in respect of the tax period April 2020 – March 2021.
4. The present petition arises out of the following two major aspects that require the consideration of this Court:
a. Whether the impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner within the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the CGST
The issuance of the Show Cause Notice was timely under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity for a hearing, thereby validating the demand order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opportunity of hearing must be comprehensive and cannot be short-circuited, and it must provide a real and meaningful opportunity for a fa....
The court ruled that personal hearing rights depend on a formal request by the assessee, and decisions on limitation for appeals under special statutes cannot be easily extended without valid justifi....
An order assessing tax cannot be sustained if the proper officer denies an effective opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017.
The court affirmed that timelines in tax appeal processes are directory, not mandatory, allowing for flexibility under circumstances of procedural injustice.
An adverse decision must be accompanied by an effective opportunity of hearing as mandated by statutory provisions; failure to do so renders the decision invalid.
Procedural fairness requires that parties receive adequate notice and opportunity to respond before demands or penalties are enforced by administrative authorities.
Notifications extending deadlines under GST must follow procedures set by the GST Act, particularly Section 168A, or face legal challenges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
