2025 (1) TMI 255 - HC - GST

Delhi HC Quashes Order u/s 73(9) CGST Act; Calls Out Lack of Reasoning, Demands Reconsideration.

In HC Delhi, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The ... Challenge to order which has come to be passed and in terms of which a SCN dated 30 May 2024 pertaining to the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 has come to be finalized - HELD THAT:- While dealing with an identically worded order passed by the said officer, in XEROX INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WARD 208 (ZONE -11) DGST AND ANR [2024 (12) TMI 1283 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it was held that 'The Assistant Commissioner has clearly adopted a template where the only reason assigned is that the reply filed was “not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous”. This clearly exhibits an abject non-application of mind and the officer repeatedly employing identical phraseology to deal with such matters.' - the final order cannot be sustained. The order dated 25 August 2024 is quashed - petition allowed. In the High Court of Delhi, the writ petitioner challenged a final order under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which finalized a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30 May 2024 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the SCN on 12 June 2024. However, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the reply, stating that it was 'not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous,' and confirmed the proposed demand due to the petitioner's absence at the personal hearing.The court referenced a similar case, Xerox India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, where it criticized the Assistant Commissioner for using identical, unreasoned language in orders, indicating 'an abject non-application of mind.' The court noted that despite previous warnings, the officer continued to use a template response.The court set aside the impugned order, citing it as 'wholly unreasoned,' and instructed the respondents to reconsider the SCN proceedings, taking into account the petitioner's reply. The court also directed that a copy of the order be presented to the Principal Commissioner for review of the adjudication process. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the order dated 25 August 2024, and leaving all rights and contentions of the parties on merits open.