9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1210 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - cryptic order - improper handling of reply by the petitioner - order u/s 73 of this Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order records that no proper reply has been submitted and the reply stated to be improper was not found to be satisfactory. It is noted that the order is cryptic order without any reasons and without taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that on account of an error details of Impugned Tax Credit were inadvertently mentioned in column IV (A) (3) instead of column IV (A) (5). None of the averments of the petitioner have been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2023. Accordingly the said order cannot be sustained and the matter calls for a remit. The impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the proper officer to pass a fresh speaking order taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner. An opportunity of personal hearing shall also be granted to the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved: Impugning an order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to improper handling of reply by the petitioner.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi, in the case where the petitioner challenged an order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, noted that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner had explained that an error led to incorrect details being mentioned, which were not taken into account during the order's issuance. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 and directed the proper officer to issue a fresh speaking order, considering the petitioner's reply and granting a personal hearing. The court clarified that it did not assess the merits of either party's contentions, preserving all rights and contentions of the parties. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
