Jain Cement Udyog Vs Sales Tax Officer Class-II
Date: October 22, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench: Delhi
Type: Writ Petition
Subject Matter
Two adjudication orders covering the same period is not sustainable
Summary
The writ petition challenges an order dated 23 April 2024, which was issued concerning the tax period from July 2018 to March 2019. This order was based on a Show Cause Notice served on the petitioner on 30 December 2020. The proceedings related to this notice were concluded with a final order passed on 1 February 2021, which is currently under appeal. - The impugned order of 23 April 2024 is seen as problematic because it revisits a tax period for which a final order had already been issued. The court acknowledged this apparent mistake. - On these grounds, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 23 April 2024, while keeping the rights and contentions of both parties regarding the determination from the 1 February 2021 order open for future discussion. The next hearing date was set for 23 October 2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. We had taken note of the challenge which stands raised in the writ petition in our order of 30 September 2024 and which is extracted hereunder:-
“1. We take note of what prima facie appears to be an apparent mistake underlying the passing of the impugned order dated 23 April 2024, a decision which pertains to the tax period of July 2018 to March 2019.
2. On 30 December 2020 the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice for the said period. Those proceedings ultimately culminated in the passing of a final order dated 01 February 2021 which presently forms subject matter of challenge in a statutory appeal.
3. However, notwithstanding those proceedings having culminated in the passing of a final order, the impugned order dated 23 April 2024 has come to be framed all over again pertaining to the same tax period and referring to the original Show Cause Notice dated 30 December 2020. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the impugned order would not sustain.
4. We, consequently, request Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, to obtain instructions.
5. Let the writ petition be called again on 23.10.2024.”
2. Mr. Malik, learned counsel, on instructions submits that the order of 23 April 2024 undoubtedly pertains to the same tax period in respect of which a final order came to be passed on 01 February 2021. We are informed that the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of 01 February 2021.
3. In view of the aforesaid and admitted facts which emerge, it is apparent that the impugned order of 23 April 2024 would not sustain.
4. Accordingly, and on this short ground alone, we allow the present writ petition and quash the order of 23 April 2024.
5. All rights and contentions of respective parties, insofar as the determination forming part of 01 February 2021 is concerned, are kept open.