TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC Quashes Order Under CGST Act Section 73(9) for Unjust Denial of Adjournment; Case Remanded for Fair Hearing.</h1> In W.P.(C) 14252/2024, the HC of Delhi quashed the final order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the Assistant Commissioner's unjustified ... Challenge to order passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- 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. The impugned order dated 16 August 2024 is quashed - petition allowed. In the High Court of Delhi, the writ petition W.P.(C) 14252/2024 was adjudicated by Hon'ble Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja. The petitioner challenged the final order dated 16 August 2024, issued under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which finalized a Show Cause Notice (SCN) from 29 May 2024. The petitioner had requested adjournments on 03 July and 05 August 2024, which were denied by the Assistant Commissioner without sufficient reasoning. The court found the Assistant Commissioner's refusal to grant adjournment to be 'extremely narrow and pedantic,' lacking justification.In response to the court's observations, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Aggarwal, suggested remitting the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration, taking into account the petitioner's response. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision, ensuring the petitioner is given an opportunity for a hearing. All parties' rights and contentions on the merits remain open.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
