Judicial Corner:
Writ not maintainable against demand order citing lack of supporting documents remedy lies in appeal – Delhi High Court { M.V. Metals V/s Commissioner Delhi GST-(2025) 31 Centax 369 (Del.)}
Issue (a): Challenge to Demand Order.
- Facts: Assessee contested a show cause notice and subsequent order demanding tax, interest, and penalty. They argued that the order was hastily passed without adequately considering their reply and supporting documents.
- Held: The court found that the adjudicating authority had considered the assessee’s reply but deemed it unsatisfactory due to the absence of crucial documents like e-way bills, invoices, bank statements, and purchase registers. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, and the appropriate remedy for the assessee was to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Issue (b): Challenge to Extension of Limitation Period via Notifications.
- Facts: Assessee challenged the validity of CBIC Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31-03-2023, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28-12-2023, and the corresponding State Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11-07-2024, which extended the period of limitation for adjudication.
Held: The court noted that the challenges to the central notifications were pending before the Supreme Court, while the challenge to the state notification was before the High Court. Therefore, the court deferred its decision on these challenges, making them subject to the outcomes of the respective higher courts’ decisions.
