Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2320-DB
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3797/2023
% Date of decision: 27.03.2023
MAJESTIC HANDICRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ajay Kumar, Mr Prakash Kumar
Sinha & Mr Kartik Garg, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R
% 27.03.2023
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
1. Issue notice.
1.1 Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
2. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Maratha says
that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed in the matter. Therefore, with
the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and
disposal, at this stage itself.
3. This writ petition is directed against notice dated 21.03.2022 issued
under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”].
3.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 28.03.2022
passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the consequential notice of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3797/2023 Page 1 of 4
Digitally Signed
By:YASHPAL GROVER
Signing Date:01.04.2023
15:33:53
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2320-DB
even date i.e., 28.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
4. The principal allegation levelled against the petitioner is, that it is a
beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by, one, Mr Sanjeev
Sharma, proprietor of Balaji Enterprises and one, Mr Suresh Kumar,
proprietor of Dev Sales Corporation.
4.1 The value placed by the respondent/revenue qua the accommodation
entry provided by Balaji Enterprises is Rs.1,44.56,180.00/- Likewise, the
value placed vis-à-vis accommodation entry provided by Dev Sales
Corporation is Rs.61,34,006/-. The cumulative value of these
accommodation entries is thus Rs.2,05,90,186/-.
5. Concededly, the petitioner had filed its reply vis-à-vis the Section
148A(b) notice.
6. Inter alia , the petitioner had submitted, that it is in the business of
exporting readymade garments, which are sourced locally. It is asserted by
the petitioner, that it had not taken accommodation entries from the
aforementioned entities. The petitioner’s case is, that it had purchased
readymade garments from the aforementioned entities, and exported the
same.
6.1 The petitioner avers, that against the exports made, it had claimed
duty drawback, which was provided by the concerned authority.
6.2 Besides other documents, the petitioner has placed on record, the
GSTR returns filed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the
Rules framed therein.
6.3 Amongst other documents, the petitioner has placed on record its
return in the prescribed form i.e., GSTR-2A, which sets out the inward
supplies. These are supplies received by the petitioner from its registered
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3797/2023 Page 2 of 4
Digitally Signed
By:YASHPAL GROVER
Signing Date:01.04.2023
15:33:53
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2320-DB
supplier. [See Annexure P-13 at page 204].
7. A perusal of the said details would show, that the GSTIN of the
supplier is adverted to in the first column of the document placed before us.
The GSTIN referred to therein matches with the GSTIN placed on the
invoices issued by Balaji Enterprises and Dev Sales Corporation.
8. The impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act does
not deal with this aspect of the matter.
9. The Assessing Officer (AO) primarily proceeds against the petitioner,
based on the fact that Balaji Enterprises was not found at the given address.
There could be several reasons, as to why Balaji Enterprises was not found
at the given address.
9.1 What the AO is required to prima facie establish, is that the stand of
the petitioner, which is that it had obtained supply of the readymade
garments from the aforementioned entities was false.
10. It appears, that the AO has not done his due diligence in that behalf.
Therefore, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the
order dated 28.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential
notice of even date i.e., 28.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act
concerning AY 2018-19. It is ordered accordingly.
10.1 The AO will, however, have liberty to carry out a de novo exercise.
Before the AO proceeds further, he will examine the documents placed on
record by the petitioner, with regard to the receipt of readymade garments
from the aforementioned entities, and their consequential exports.
10.2 Needless to say, in case the AO furnishes further material to the
petitioner, an opportunity will be given to the petitioner’s authorized
representative to respond to the same. The AO will also grant a personal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3797/2023 Page 3 of 4
Digitally Signed
By:YASHPAL GROVER
Signing Date:01.04.2023
15:33:53
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2320-DB
hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 27, 2023 /r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3797/2023 Page 4 of 4
Digitally Signed
By:YASHPAL GROVER
Signing Date:01.04.2023
15:33:53