Babaji Bags A Proprietary Firm Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)

In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has overturned an order related to a GST show cause notice (SCN) due to incorrect email communication. The petitioner, Ajay Kukreja, challenged the order dated 21.11.2023, which adjudicated the SCN issued on 30.08.2022, leading to a demand against the petitioner.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, there was a failure in communication as the petitioner never received any correspondence regarding the hearing. It was argued that the communication purportedly sent by the respondent was directed to an incorrect email address.

The petitioner emphasized that they have consistently used a single email address, [email protected], for all communications. The court recorded this statement and directed the department to correspond using the specified email address.

However, the respondents’ counsel contended that the communication was sent to the email address of the person who had registered the petitioner, attributing the error to changes in departmental personnel. It was acknowledged that the intimation was not sent to the aforementioned email address but to another one.

Considering the petitioner’s lack of notification regarding the hearing, the court deemed it necessary to remit the matter to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the order dated 21.11.2023 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the SCN issued on 30.08.2022.

Additionally, it was brought to light that the petitioner had already filed an application for rectifying a mistake in Form GSTR-3B for the period July 2017 to November 2018, which remained unresolved. The court directed the Competent Authority to duly consider the petitioner’s rectification application in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper communication and procedural fairness in adjudicative matters concerning GST. This case underscores the significance of accurate correspondence and timely rectification processes in tax-related disputes.