Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 615 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner - cryptic order - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 01.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits and without any justification, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. The impugned order dated 30.03.2024 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved: Impugned order under u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not considering detailed reply, sustainability of the order, opportunity for clarification, remittance for re-adjudication.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.03.2024, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 50,00,080.00 under u/s 73 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the order did not consider the detailed reply submitted on 01.02.2024, raising concerns about the lack of justification in the order. The Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2023 outlined various issues including excess claim Input Tax Credit, under declaration of ineligible ITC, and ITC claimed from specific categories. The petitioner provided a detailed reply under each head. However, the impugned order dismissed the reply as devoid of merits and justification, without proper consideration, leading to doubts about the application of mind by the Proper Officer. The court found the observation in the impugned order unsustainable as it failed to adequately assess the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. It was noted that the Proper Officer did not seek further details or provide an opportunity for clarification, indicating a lack of due process in the decision-making. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days, following which the Proper Officer was instructed to re-adjudicate the matter, allowing for a personal hearing and issuing a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. Additionally, the challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 concerning the initial extension of time was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|