$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2704/2019 RADHA KRISHNA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Virag Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Jee Bhatt, Mr. Rajeev Agarwal Advs.

versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji Senior Panel Counsel with Mr Aniruddha Ghosh, Ms. Surabhi Tuli, advs. for Respondent-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

1. Under the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (‘Act of 2004’), the Joint Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 26^th November, 2018 for all four quarters of the year 2015–2016 and as such, the this petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) issued by the Joint Commissioner is not based on the very parameters which are provided under Section 74A of the Act of 2004.

3. Even otherwise, according to him, the Joint Commissioner, while passing the impugned order has not taken recourse to the scheme of the Act under which he could exercise jurisdiction.

4. Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Combined Traders, (2025) 30 Centax 379 (SC), it is the settled position of law that ‘C’ Forms once issued, cannot be cancelled and in such an eventuality, the respondent/revisional authority is not vested with the power to issue a SCN or to pass the impugned order.

5. According to him, in exercise of the powers under Section 74B(5) of the Act of 2004, the reviewing authority has already approved the assessment and that being so, the embargo under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 74A of the Act of 2004 shall operate.

6. He would further claim that, before passing the impugned order, an opportunity of hearing was not granted.

7. As against above, the learned counsel for the respondent would invite our attention to the SCN, so as to claim that since the decision taken by the assessing officer was erroneous and same was not in the interest of revenue, the SCN was issued.

8. According to her, the issue as regards to the jurisdiction, including whether the ‘C’ Forms can be cancelled or not and whether the action of the respondent/authority is within the limitation prescribed under Section 74A, can be gone into by the very same authority by recording appropriate reasons. 9. The learned counsel would urge that if not already afforded, the respondent is willing to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

10. We have considered the said submissions.

11. We have looked into the orders of the assessing authority and the appellate authority, wherein the returns were accepted as NIL for all the quarters, but for one quarter in which an amount of Rs. 3,228/- was shown to be taxable.

12. The fact remains that the authority has issued a SCN by entertaining a suo motu revision and has passed the impugned order.

13. Though the learned counsel for the respondent is claiming that the revisional authority cannot go beyond the scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 74A of the Act of 2004 and the grounds provided thereunder, it is always open to the petitioner to canvass the said issue before the revisional authority.

14. We are further of the view that all the issues can be looked into by the revisional authority provided that it grants an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

15. In that eventuality, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the revisional authority deserves to be, and is hereby, quashed and set aside.

16. The revisional authority is directed to consider the reply/explanations submitted by the petitioner, so also the scheme under Section 74A of the Act of 2004, qua its jurisdiction and the powers to be exercised under the contingencies reflected therein.

17. If so required, the petitioner shall submit additional written submissions along with documents within a period of four weeks from today. 18. We permit the petitioner to appear befo