Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025
MMR ELECTRICALS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Nisha Mohandas, Advs.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– MMR Electricals under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13th April, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).
3. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that a reply dated 19th February, 2024 along with supporting documents was filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the issuance of show cause notice dated 13th December, 2023.
4. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 13th April, 2024 was passed wherein a demand of Rs. 11,34,648/- was raised upon the Petitioner, without considering the reply of the Petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that the detailed reply filed by the Petitioner to the issues raised in the show cause notice dated 13th December, 2023, has not at all been considered while passing the impugned order and instead, a non-speaking, cryptic order has been issued. Furthermore, it is the case of the Petitioner that no opportunity for personal hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner.
6. Heard. This Court has considered the submissions made and has perused the impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted herein below:
7. Upon perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the same has been passed after considering the reply of the Petitioner. In addition to that, an opportunity for personal hearing was also provided to the Petitioner, followed by the issuance of a reminder for the same. However, the opportunity for personal hearing was not availed by the Petitioner.
8. In light of the observations made, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
9. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
10. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner before 10th July, 2025, along with the mandatory pre-deposit, the same shall be adjudicated upon merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
11. It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present petition shall have no bearing upon the decision of the appellate authority.
12. The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 6, 2025‘dc’/ss (corrected & released on 13th May, 2025)