Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1357 - HC - GSTRejection of benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - petitioner assails the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - an inadvertent error of one of the suppliers in not mentioning the GSTIN number of the petitioner in the invoice - Mismatch of credit in Form GSTR-3B and the same was not reflected in FORM GSTR-2A. - HELD THAT:- Notice of personal hearing of the appeal was issued several times, but petition failed to appeal before the appellate authorities - Being left with no option, the respondent no.2 [Commissioner (Appeals)] proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte on the basis of the available records. One of the facets of the principle of natural justice is the concept of audi alteram partem or the rule of fair hearing. There can be no precise definition or strait-jacket formula which is to be followed in all cases. Notice of hearing is regarded as the minimum obligatory condition in such cases. The underlying principle which is to be followed in such cases is one of fairness. The petitioner had been given notice of personal hearing and repeated opportunities i.e. on 11 August, 2022, 1 September, 2022, 19 October, 2022 and 9 November, 2022 respectively. However, the petitioner chose not to appear leaving the respondent no.2 with no other option but to pass an ex parte order. The reconciliation process which the respondent no.2 has failed to do on the grounds of documentary evidence not being available is prima facie not tenable. Any mismatch ought to have been attempted to be ascertained from the records of the respondent authorities and their online portal. Moreover, the respondent authorities have not even adverted to the Circular dated 27 December, 2022 which inter alia clarify the approach to be followed by the Department in cases where the supplier had wrongly reported the said supply as B2C instead of B2B in FORM GSTR-1 due to which the relevant supply was not get reflected. Similarly, the declaration of the wrong GSTIN of the recipient in the FORM GSTR-1 ought to have been dealt with in terms of the said Circular. There is also absence of reasons in the impugned order in rejecting the contentions raised by the appellant. The impugned order is unsustainable and set aside - appellant is directed to deposit twenty (20) per cent of the tax in dispute in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of section 107 of the Act. Upon such payment being made within 7 days from the date of passing of this order - Matter restored back for fresh adjudication.
|