GST Demand Order Quashed for Denial of Adjournments Without Sufficient Reasons: Matter Remanded for Fresh Hearing
Summary in Key Points:
- Issue: The assessee challenged a GST demand order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, alleging that their adjournment requests were rejected without proper justification.
- Facts: The Assistant Commissioner refused the assessee’s requests for adjournments, taking a narrow view and failing to provide sufficient reasons for the denial.
- Decision: The High Court quashed the demand order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that:
- The Assistant Commissioner’s refusal of adjournments without adequate reasons was unjustified and violated the principles of natural justice.
- The assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present their case and seek adjournments when necessary.
- Impact: The court’s decision protects the assessee’s right to a fair hearing and ensures that tax authorities exercise their discretion reasonably when considering adjournment requests.
This case highlights the importance of providing sufficient reasons when denying adjournment requests in GST proceedings. It underscores the need for tax authorities to act fairly and transparently, ensuring that taxpayers have a reasonable opportunity to present their case and defend themselves against any demands. The court’s decision to quash the demand order and remand the matter for a fresh hearing with proper consideration of adjournment requests reinforces the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax administration.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Indian Spinal Injuries Centre
v.
Assistant Commissioner (DGST)
Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
W.P.(C) No.14252 of 2024
OCTOBER 25, 2024
Vivek Sharma and Ms. Saumya Mehrotra, Advs. for the Petitioner. Rajeev Aggarwal and Shubham Goel, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
CM APPL. 59713/2024 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14252/2024 & CM APPL. 59712/2024 (Interim Stay)
1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 16 August 2024, purported to have been passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In terms of the aforesaid, the respondent has proceeded to finalize the Show Cause Notice which was issued on 29 May 2024.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed its response to that notice. During the course of the proceedings which were drawn by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had made a request for adjournment on 03 July 2024. In the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner has merely observed that sufficient cause had not been shown even though the petitioner had sought adjournment on 03 July and 05 August 2024 and thus, had not appeared for a personal hearing before the authorities.
3. While there is some contestation with respect to the participation of the petitioner in the hearings that ensued and on the different dates which were fixed by the Assistant Commissioner, for the purposes of the present writ petition, we find it unnecessary to delve into those aspects since, and in our considered opinion, the Assistant Commissioner has clearly taken an extremely narrow and pedantic view while refusing to accede to the prayer for adjournment. The authority has failed to assign any reason in support of its conclusion that the request for adjournment was unmerited.
4. In light of the tentative conclusions noted above, Mr. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the ends of justice may merit the matter being remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the proceedings afresh bearing in mind the reply which was submitted by the writ petitioner.
5. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 16 August 2024. The proceedings shall stand revived before the Assistant Commissioner who shall proceed to take a final view in the matter bearing in mind the petitioner’s reply dated 03 July 2024. The Assistant Commissioner would also be obliged to accord an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.
6. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.