2025 (5) TMI 1253 - HC - GST

Tax Dispute Resolution: Petitioner Granted Personal Hearing After Input Tax Credit Demand Clarification and Rights Preservation

Delhi MSW Solutions Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax & Ors.

HC addressed a petition challenging a tax demand for alleged excess Input Tax Credit. After hearing the Assistant Commissioner, who clarified the demand ... Availment of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) - reply to the SCN not considered by the adjudicating authority - rectification application - seeking to quash the impugned order - HELD THAT:- After perusing the matter, the Court had directed the officer concerned i.e., the Assistant Commissioner – Mr. Ahuja to join the proceedings virtually. Post lunch, on the second call, he has joined the proceedings and explained that the entire reply has been considered. In fact, the initial demand as can be seen from the impugned SCN was to the tune of Rs. 7,74,72,844/- and after considering the reply, the same has been reduced to the amount of Rs. 1.60 crores approximately. He further submits that a rectification application has also been filed under Section 161 of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 and the same is pending consideration before him. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that in the rectification application, a personal hearing can be afforded to the Petitioner by the concerned official and an order be passed in accordance with law. The date of hearing be communicated to the Petitioner, through the Portal as also through the ld. Counsel who is appearing today. The petition is disposed of in these terms. The Delhi High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, addressed a petition challenging the impugned order dated 28th February 2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 1,60,35,990 against the Petitioner for alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment. The Petitioner contended that their detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19th November 2024 was not considered and sought remand to the Adjudicating Authority (GST Department).The Court, after hearing the Assistant Commissioner who clarified that the reply was considered-resulting in a reduction of demand from Rs. 7.74 crores to Rs. 1.60 crores-and noting a pending rectification application under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, observed that the Petitioner had not disclosed this pendency.The Court directed that a personal hearing be afforded to the Petitioner on the rectification application, with the hearing date communicated via the Portal and to the Petitioner's counsel. It held that 'all rights and remedies of the Petitioner in respect of the impugned order as also the rectification order, if any, are left open,' and accordingly disposed of the petition and all pending applications.