Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Petitioner Not Served with Show Cause Notice Post GST Registration Cancellation: Delhi HC Sets Aside Demand Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order demanding Rs. 7,56,66,476 from M/S Jain Cement Udyog, emphasizing the failure of service of a Show Cause Notice due to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration. The bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja delivered the judgment on April 4, 2024, addressing crucial aspects of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act.

The judgment revolved around the procedural improprieties in the issuance of a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core issue was the alleged non-receipt of the notice and subsequent order by the petitioner, following a retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

M/S Jain Cement Udyog, represented by Mr. R.P. Singh, challenged the order dated December 4, 2023, which demanded the substantial sum including penalty for under-declaration of output tax, excessive claim of Input Tax Credit, and claims from cancelled dealers. The petitioner contended non-receipt of the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order due to the retrospective cancellation of their GST registration effective July 26, 2017.

 

Jurisdiction under CGST Act: The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument, ruling that the impugned order was unsustainable as it was passed without consideration of the effect of retrospective GST registration cancellation.

Natural Justice and Fairness: Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court noted the failure to serve the Show Cause Notice deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to present their case, thereby breaching principles of natural justice.

Re-adjudication Directions: The Court directed re-adjudication of the matter, ordering the petitioner to submit a reply within 30 days, followed by a fresh order from the Proper Officer after a personal hearing.

Regarding Multiple Proceedings: The judgment clarified that this decision does not prejudice ongoing proceedings by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit, based on another notice for the same tax period.

Notification Challenge: The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the extension of time was left open, with the Court not commenting on its merits.

The petition was disposed of with instructions for re-adjudication in line with statutory provisions. The Court emphasized the preservation of all rights and contentions of the parties involved.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2024

M/S Jain Cement Udyog vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Anr.

Similar News