Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Nanu Ram Goyal vs Commissioner Of Cgst And Central ... on 16 February, 2024

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                                    $~SB-1
                                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +    W.P.(C) 13906/2022
                                         NANU RAM GOYAL                             ..... Petitioner
                                                          Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Shammi Kapoor,
                                                                     Mr. Vishal Kumar & Ms. Prachi Jain,
                                                                     Advs.
                                                          versus
                                         COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
                                         DELHI & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                                                          Through: Mr. R Ramachandran, Adv.
                                         CORAM:
                                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
                                                          ORDER

% 16.02.2024 CM APPL. 62040/2023 & REVIEW PET. 330/2023

1. Respondent no.1/ review petitioner (hereafter Revenue) has filed the present review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by this Court.

2. Mr. R. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, GST and Central Excise Commissionerate II & Ors. v. M/s Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., SLP(C) No. 20072 of 2021 dated 10 July, 2023, wherein the Supreme Court had accepted the Revenue's contention that the matters be remitted to the Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner of GST) to conclude the proceedings within a period of eight weeks.

3. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order in Commissioner, GST and Central Excise Commissionerate This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2024 at 20:42:21 II & Ors. v. M/s Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. (supra) was passed in the given facts of that case. She submits that in that case, the Court had noted the submission that, the assessee had despite notices not appeared before the concerned officer, which is not so in the present case. She further submits that the Supreme Court has not decided the question as considered by this Court in the judgment under review and had issued directions in the facts of that case keeping all contentions of the parties open. She also points out that this Court had in its order dated 18.04.2023 also considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.:2022 SCC OnLine Bom 648 and a Special Leave Petition against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

4. The order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.828/2023 captioned Union of India & Ors. v. ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. indicates that prior to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the Court had heard the counsels for the parties at length and found that there was no ground to interfere with the said decision.

5. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, GST and Central Excise Commissionerate II & Ors. v. M/s Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. (supra) was rendered in the facts of that case as the court considered it apposite to relegate the matter to the Adjudicating Authority.

6. We find no ground to review the judgment under review. Moreover, it is also seen that the present review petition has been filed after 154 days This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2024 at 20:42:21 delay. The learned counsel for the revenue states that the due process for approval / permission for filing the review petition, from the hierarchy of the departmental authorities was followed and the same resulted in the aforesaid delay. It is contended that the delay in filing the present review petition is on account of the administrative reasons. We are unable to accept that the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present review petition within the stipulated period.

7. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and on merits.



                                                                                                                           VIBHU BAKHRU, J




                                                                                                                           AMIT MAHAJAN, J
                                    FEBRUARY 16, 2024
                                    'gsr'                                                         Click here to check corrigendum, if any




This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/02/2024 at 20:42:22