BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr
[Citation -2020-LL-0702-13]

Citation 2020-LL-0702-13
Appellant Name BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 02/07/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags waiver of interest • cut-off date • audit party

5 $ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3776/2020 & CM APPL. 13514/2020 BSA CITI COURIER PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI WEST & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 02nd July, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging communication dated 05th March, 2020 whereby declaration filed by petitioner, under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019, for waiver of interest only from April, 2015 to June, 2017 has been rejected without affording any opportunity of hearing by stating date of communication declared is 05.09.2019 which is beyond cut-off date (i.e. 30.06.2019). Therefore application cannot be accepted under section 125(1)(e) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 2019 . W.P. (C) 3776/2020 Page 1 of 3 3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that alleged reason is contrary to facts as petitioner was made aware of quantification way back in March 2019 i.e. prior to cut-off date. According to him, record of respondents itself establishes that amount stood quantified by Audit Party of respondents in March, 2019 i.e. before cut-off date of 30th June, 2019. He submits that respondents have wilfully mis-interpreted provisions of Section 125(1)(e) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 2019 which mentions about quantification on or before 30th June, 2019 and not communication. 4. He points out that Assistant Commissioner Division Connaught Place, vide letter dated 05th September, 2019 had asked petitioner to avail of Scheme 2019, if it so desired. Consequently, according to him, petitioner is eligible under Scheme and reason stated in impugned communication is contrary to Scheme and without any merit. 5. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, states that quantification in present case was done post 30th June, 2019 and was communicated to petitioner for first time on 05th September, 2019. He states that petitioner cannot reply on internal correspondences/communications between different departments of respondents to contend that quantification took place in March, 2019. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that impugned communication dated 05th March, 2020 has been issued by respondents without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without considering case put forward by petitioner. W.P. (C) 3776/2020 Page 2 of 3 7. Consequently, present writ petition and pending application are disposed of by setting aside order/communication dated 05 th March, 2020 and by directing respondent No.2 to give hearing to petitioner on 09th July, 2020 at 11.30 a.m. 8. In event, petitioner is aggrieved by decision of respondent No.2, it shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 9. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. 10. order be uploaded on website forthwith. Copy of order be also forwarded to learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 02, 2020 js W.P. (C) 3776/2020 Page 3 of 3 BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr
Report Error