Another Opportunity Should Be Provided If Proper Officer Was of View That Reply Was Incomplete and Further Details Required | HC

Case Details: Federal Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner DGST - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 652 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
  • Joseph Kodianthara, Sr. Adv. V. Shyamohan, Ms Eshita Baruah, Abraham Joseph Marcos & Ms Tissy Annie Thomas, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Rajeev Aggarwal & Ms Samridhi Vats for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the petitioner received a show cause notice and it submitted detailed reply in pursuance to the show cause notice. However, the impugned order was passed next day in a very cryptic manner without giving any reason and it merely stated that “reply was not clear and satisfactory”. It filed writ petition against the order.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that a detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner giving full disclosures against the said show cause notice but the impugned order, however, after recording the narration, stated that the reply uploaded by the tax payer was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unable to clarify the issues.

The Court further noted that in case the Proper Officer was of the view that reply was incomplete and further details were required, the same could have been sought from the petitioner. However, the record did not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. Therefore, the Court held that impugned order was liable to be set aside and the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the show cause notice within a period of two weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing.