Order Was Set Aside as It Did Not Provide Adequate Reasons for Rejecting the Assessee’s Detailed Reply to the SCN | HC

Case Details: Rajdhani Trading Co. v. Union of India - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 218 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Yashwant Varma & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
• Gaurav Gupta & Deepanshu Saini, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC, Chandandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh Somaria, Akhil Gupta, Dipak Raj, Shubham Kumar, Mayank Kamra, Advs., Anurag Ojha, SSC, & Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered person, filed a detailed reply to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The reply was not accepted by the proper officer, and the demand was confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition to the Delhi High Court contending that the order did not provide any adequate reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s detailed reply to the show-cause notice (SCN).

High Court Held

The Delhi High Court noted that the order merely reiterated procedural steps (issuance of SCN, invitation for reply) without discussing or analyzing the petitioner’s reply. Such a non-speaking order violates the principles of natural justice as the proper officer did not fulfill its duty to record reasons for its conclusions. Therefore, the said order was to be set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.