Delhi High Court - Orders
Khemka Aviation Private Limited vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 1 & ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Sachin Datta
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10591/2024 CM APPL. 43570/2024
KHEMKA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Mr. Sahil Sharma
and Mr. Naveen Rastogi, Advs.
versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO WARD 1 & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC alongwith
Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Tarun
Walia and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 01.08.2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.04.2024(hereafter the impugned order) on several grounds, including, that it is an unreasoned order.
2. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act)/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter DGST Act) in respect of Financial Year 2018-19. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 13.12.2023 (hereafter the SCN), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the proposed demand should not be raised on account of inadmissible input tax credit (hereafter ITC) in respect of motor vehicle services and airlines travel.
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 06/08/2024 at 01:51:11
3. The petitioner had responded to the said SCN by stating that it has not availed the ITC in respect of the said supplies. In support of its claim, the petitioner has enclosed with his reply, a tabular statement setting out the parties from whom the petitioner had availed inputs and the adjustments.
4. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the response of the petitioner by simply stating that the reply is not satisfactory.
5. This Court is inundated with writ petitions challenging such unreasoned orders, which have been issued on the last few days of the extended period of limitation for passing such orders.
6. It is apparent that such orders are not informed by reason and fail to consider the responses submitted by the tax payers. It appears that these orders have been passed only to somehow raise a demand prior to the expiry of the limitation period and perhaps being fully conscious that said orders would not sustain.
7. The entire purpose appears to be, to bypass the statutory period of limitation. Prima facie, this would be a fraud on the statute and ought not to be countenanced.
8. Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents accept notice.
9. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 seeks time to file counter-affidavit.
10. Respondent no. 2 and 3 shall also file an affidavit affirming the number of orders, which have been passed on the last three days of the extended period of limitation; the number of writ petitions which have been filed before this court challenging such orders; the number of orders, which have set aside on the ground that they are unreasoned. The affidavit shall 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 06/08/2024 at 01:51:11 indicate the number of such orders passed officer-wise indicating the number of orders passed by the respective officers during the last three days of the extended period of limitation.
11. List on 29.08.2024.
12. In the meanwhile, the impugned order is stayed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 01, 2024 at 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 06/08/2024 at 01:51:12