ARROW AIRCRAFT SALES AND CHARTERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 202 ZONE 11 DELHI & ORS.

$~57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2562/2024 & CM APPL. 10492-93/2024

ARROW AIRCRAFT SALES AND CHARTERS
PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner

versus

SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO
WARD 202 ZONE 11 DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha and Mr. Ranesh Mankotia, Advocates

For the Respondents: Ms. Shaguftha Hameed, Mr. Prateek Badhwar, Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocates for Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC
Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Nishtha Mittal and Ms. Apurva Singh, Advocates for R-3

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. Petitioner impugns Notification No. 9 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 whereby the limitation period for exercise of power under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been extended.
3. Petitioner also impugns order dated 31.12.2023 whereby the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act have been concluded and a demand has been created against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 was received by the petitioner to which a detailed point-wise reply was submitted.
5. It is noticed that the order dated 31.12.2023 records that no proper reply/explanation has been received from the tax-payer despite sufficient and repeated opportunities which indicates that the tax-payer has nothing to say in the matter.
6. The observation in the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply.
7. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the explanation was sufficient or not. He merely held that no proper reply/explanation has been received which ex-facie shows that proper officer has not even looked at the reply submitted by the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 31.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication of the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act within four weeks after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
9. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 is left open.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

FEBRUARY 21, 2024 RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
‘rs’

W.P.(C) 2562/2024 Page 3 of 3