← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/16547/2023

M/S. Malik Enterprises v. Union Of India & ORS.

2024-08-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta3 pages

$~16 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 16547/2023 M/S. MALIK ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal and Mr.

Nikhin Alex, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC along with Mr.

Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. M.N. Mishra, Mr.

Krishna Sharma and Ms. Shreya Jain, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC along with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Sarthak Mittal and Mr.

Vaibhav Chechi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

O R D E R

% 23.08.2024 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act)/ Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act). The petitioner claims that the same is violative of Article 14, Article 19(1) (g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

2.

The petitioner also impugns a Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Input Tax Credit claimed should not be recovered from the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

petitioner under Section 73(1) of CGST Act/DGST Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the impugned SCN, an order dated 16.04.2024 under Section 73 CGST Act/DGST Act has been passed confirming the demand as set out in the impugned SCN.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the introduction of sub-section 5 of Section 16 of the CGST Act/DGST Act by virtue of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, the petitioner's grievance with regard to the impugned SCN would be addressed if the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to re-adjudicate the impugned SCN once again in the light of introduction of sub-section 5 of Section 16 by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.

5.

The learned counsel for petitioner unequivocally states that the petitioner is not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of CGST Act/DGST Act.

6.

Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, states that the respondent has no objection if the order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the impugned SCN in light of the statutory amendments introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.

7.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 16.04.2024, passed pursuant to the impugned SCN. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

8.

The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the impugned SCN in light of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 23, 2024/cl The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.