DMI ALTERNATIVES PRIVATE LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADJUDICATION) & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~127 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 5755/2025 DMI ALTERNATIVES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocates. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADJUDICATION) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, SSC for R-1 to R-3. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Advocate for GNCTD. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 26281/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 5755/2025 & CM APPLs. 26280/2025 (for stay) 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – DMI Alternatives Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 27th July, 2024 and consequential order bearing no. 125/ADC/D.N./Bhavan Meena/2024-25 dated 30th January, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by Office of Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi North W.P.(C) 5755/2025 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Date:13.05.2025 17:40:26 Commissionerate. 4. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order wrongly seeks to tax the entire amount earmarked for fund expenses, which are liable to be reimbursed to the Petitioner at actuals as and when incurred, by deeming the same as consideration towards supply of services by the Petitioner to the fund. 5. The short issue that has been pressed into service by Mr. Ajay Vohra, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned order lacks jurisdiction as there has been a misinterpretation of the Investment Management Agreement dated 19th Sept