Case Details: Amit Upadhyay (Proprietor of Gayatari Diamonds) v. Sales Tax Officer - [2024] 161 taxmann.com 676 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
  • Puneet Rai & Kapil Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC & Ms Samridhi Vats, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received a show cause notice proposing a demand for “excess claim ITC and ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers”. It submitted detailed reply but the department disallowed input tax credit as petitioner not shown bank payment proof of invoices and the demand was confirmed. It filed writ petition against the demand order.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply responding to each of the points raised. The Court also noted that the department issued reminder letter to petitioner and opportunity to personally appear was given. However, there was no requirement stipulated in letter to produce any bank payment proofs.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was ready to produce all proofs of payments made through bank channel. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was to be set aside and matter to be remanded. The Court also directed the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents before the proper officer.