Proper Officer Should at Least Consider Reply on Merits and Then Form an Opinion | HC Remanded Matter Back for Re-Adjudication

Case Details: Mitsubishi Electric India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
• Rajat Bose & Ankit Sachdeva, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Himanshu Pathak, Samman Kumar, Adv. Harpreet Singh, SSC, Chander Kiran, Sameer Gosain, Rabindra Prasad Sinha, Pawan Kumar & Abhinav Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a private limited company engaged in business of manufacturing and supply of electrical goods. The department issued a show cause notice proposing demand and penalty on grounds of under declaration of output tax, excess claim of ITC etc. It submitted a detailed reply but the proper officer passed order raising demand against petitioner on the ground that reply was not properly filed/explained. It filed writ petition against the demand order.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the impugned order merely recorded that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer was not properly filed/explained. However, the reply submitted by the petitioner was a detailed reply with supporting documents. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. If any further detailed were required, the same could have been specifically sought from petitioner, however no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and SCN was remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.