Delhi High Court - Orders
Citibank N.A vs The Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 14 August, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10573/2024
CITIBANK N.A. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Prasad Paranjpe, Mr Kumar Harsh
Wardhan, Mr Jaideep Singh Dhillon,
Mr Aman Bansal and Mr Anirudh
Jamwal, Advocates.
versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr
Shubham Goel, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 14.08.2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 pertaining to the financial year 2018-19.
2. The present petition was listed on 01.08.2024 and this Court had issued the notice confined to the question as to whether the impugned order has been violative of the principles of natural justice on the ground that the adjudicating authority which passed the impugned order had not afforded an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order is set out below:
"CM APPL. 53501/20241. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:21.08.2024 15:22:58
2. Application is disposed of.W.P.(C) 10573/2024
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 29.04.2024(hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act)/ and Delhi Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereafter DGST Act). In addition, the petitioner has also challenged the Constitutional vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the DGST Act for being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Insofar as the challenge to the Constitutional vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the DGST Act is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the same. He has confined the present petition to challenging the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. He states that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Adjudicating Authority (Smt. Sarita Sabharwal, Assistant Commissioner, Ward 206, Zone-11, Delhi). However, the impugned order was passed by another Adjudicating Authority (Mr. Lalit Kumar, GST Officer/Proper Officer, Ward-206).
5. He also states that the impugned order is unreasoned inasmuch as it does not address the response submitted by the petitioner. Concededly, petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appealing the impugned order under Section 107 of the CGST Act/DGST Act before the Appellate Authority.
6. In this view, we do not propose to entertain the present petition insofar as the challenge on merits of the impugned order is concerned.
7. Issue notice on the limited question whether the impugned order has been passed by an officer who had not afforded any personal hearing to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent accepts notice. He seeks time to take instructions.
9. List on 13.08.2024."
3. Mr Aggarwal states, on instructions, that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be restored before the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
AUGUST 14, 2024
RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any