Case Details: Biba Fashion Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi - [2024] 161 taxmann.com 399 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
- Dhananjai Shekhawat, Archit Jain, Rishab Singhla & Sandeep Goyal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Varun Vats, SPC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in the business of retail trading of ladies garments and accessories. The department issued a show cause notice (SCN) proposing a demand of Rs. 56,32,814. The petitioner filed a detailed reply but the proper officer did not consider the reply and passed a cryptic order. It filed writ petition against the order and contended that detailed reply was filed but the Adjudicating Authority did not take it into consideration.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the impugned order stated that “On the basis of reply uploaded by the taxpayer, it has been observed that the same is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unable to clarify the issue. Since, the reply filed is not clear and satisfactory”.
The Court noted that the observation in the impugned order was not sustainable for the reason that the reply filed by the petitioner was a detailed reply. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion and if it was of view that any further details were required, same could have been specifically sought from petitioner.
In the present case, the proper officer merely held that the reply was incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents, not clear and unsatisfactory, which ex-facie showed that proper officer had not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and matter was remitted to proper officer for re-adjudication.
The post HC Quashed Order Since AO Didn’t Ask Petitioner to Furnish Further Documents if Reply Was Found Unsatisfactory appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
