|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 16293 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1345
Demand for tax including the tax, interest and penalty - attachment of the bank accounts for recovery of the alleged tax dues - inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the show-cause notice and pre-intimation - Show Cause Notices and pre-intimation notices communicated electronically by uploading the same on GST portal as well as e-mail - issued under Rule 142(1A) and Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 - Challenged the impugned order passed under Section 74(9) - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice.
In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the first respondent under Section 74 (9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure-K is hereby set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 28.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from the first respondent.
(iv) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(v) It is further made clear that in the event petitioners do not appear on 28.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1344
Challenged the impugned ex-parte orders passed without hearing and SCN - Difference/discrepancy between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A - failure to respond to the show cause notices - non-consideration of the Circular issued by the Central Government, Government of India, bearing No. 183/15/2022-GST - bona fide reasons and sufficient cause justifying reconsideration of the matter - HELD THAT:- In view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the reply to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
In the result, I pass the following:
The Writ Petition is allowed;
The impugned orders passed by respondent at Annexures-E1 dated 31.05.2023, E2 dated 06.01.2024, F1 dated 31.05.2023, F2 dated 06.01.2024, H1 dated 06.06.2024 and H2 dated 06.06.2024, are hereby set aside;
The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the aforesaid Circular bearing No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022;
Upon the petitioner submitting a reply along with relevant documents to the show cause notice, on 28.04.2025, the respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law.
It is further made clear that in the event petitioners do not appear on 28.04.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled/cancelled and the present petition shall stand revived/ restored without further orders and without reference to the Bench.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1343
Entitlement for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) qua Cess - zero-rated supplies - goods manufactured for export - Validity of Circular No.125/44/2019-GST-as well as para-5 of the Circular No.45/19/2018-GST issued under Section 168 - challenged the show cause notice and the order of sanction of refund - HELD THAT:- While applying the provisions of the Section 54(3) of the GST Act read with Section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 11(2) of the Cess Act, admittedly the compensation cess was not paid at the time of export of goods by the petitioner, the petitioner, therefore, is entitled to refund of input tax credit of the compensation cess paid on purchase of the coal utilized for the purpose of manufacture of the goods which are exported as zero rated supply on payment of IGST by the petitioner. Therefore, reliance placed by the respondent on para-42 of the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18/11/2019 is misplaced because the said circular was issued clarifying the eligibility to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess paid on input, where the zero rated final product is not leviable with compensation cess.
However, the circular refers to the provision of Section 16(2) of the IGST Act that the registered person making zero rated supply of aluminum products under bond or LUT may claim refund of unutilized credit including that of compensation cess paid on coal. The circular further clarifies that when the registered person make a zero rated supply of product on payment of integrated tax, they cannot utilize the credit of the compensation cess paid on coal for payment of Integrated tax in view of the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Cess Act, as the said proviso allows the utilization of the input tax credit of cess, only for the payment of cess on the outward supplies. However, when the petitioner has paid the IGST under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act on the zero rated supply and refund is claimed by the payment of such IGST, the petitioner admittedly would not be able to utilize input tax credit of cess as cess is not payable on the zero rated supply. Therefore, proviso to Section 11(2) of the Act would not be applicable in the facts of the case and the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the unutilized input tax credit on cess paid on purchase of coal utilized for the purpose of manufacture of goods which are exported.
Thus, the petitions succeed and accordingly the same are allowed. The respondents are directed to process the refund applications of the petitioners to sanction the refund of the Cess amount claimed by the petitioners as unutilized Input Tax credit.
So far as the Special Civil Application No.19279 of 2023 is concerned, order dated 28/07/2023 passed by the Officer of the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby quashed and set aide and order sanctioning the refund is restored.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1342
Provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account - Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Fresh attachment since the initial (previous) attachment order was quashed - failure to render cooperation in the disposal of those show cause proceedings - HELD THAT:- Section 83 of the CGST Act mandates that provisional attachment may be exercised in situations where the Commissioner is of the opinion that “for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue” such an action “is necessary so to do”. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishnan also recognised the triumvirate conditions embodied in the provision, which is that the attachment of property is intended to be provisional, i.e., “in aid of something else”, the purpose of such attachment must be to protect the interests of the Revenue and that the conditions as laid down within the provision must be met in order for such attachment to be deemed as a valid exercise of power.
The respondents, in clear contravention of the requirements laid down in Radha Krishnan [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] have been unable to demonstrate any reasonable apprehension that the writ petitioner herein was at risk of defaulting on payment of any demands that may come to be imposed. On the contrary, the only reasons adduced by the respondents for the initiation of Section 83 proceedings was that the writ petitioner had failed to file any response to the DRC-01 or the SCN, did not attend the hearing of the adjudicating authority and allegedly refused to cooperate with the respondents during the adjudication of show cause proceedings - such reasoning abjectly fails to meet the thresholds as engrafted within the provision, of the respondents being required to form an opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach the property so as to protect the interest of government revenue.
As observed by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishnan, the draconian nature of the provision and the grave consequences that are suffered by a person whose property is provisionally attached necessitates that the criterion for valid initiation of Section 83 actions are met. This requires the production of cogent and credible material basis which the respondents could have reasonably come to form an opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary and essential for the purposes of securing the interests of government revenue. It surely cannot be justified on the basis of vague apprehensions or a failure to cooperate or provide responses to notices.
Conclusion - The respondents' exercise of power under Section 83 was without the requisite formation of opinion based on tangible material, was arbitrary, and violated statutory and constitutional principles. The attachment was therefore quashed, and directions were issued for the immediate de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account.
The impugned order of provisional attachment dated 26 December 2024 set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1278
Recalling of order - Validity of the Orders obtained on the basis of the said fabricated SCNs - GST Registration retrospectively cancelled - Identifying the culprit who fabricated the SCN - HELD THAT:- In fact, the actual SCN is extremely detailed and gives the full reasoning for issuance of the same. It is further stated by the Department that the relevant paragraphs containing the “remarks” are missing from the SCN which forms a part of the subject petition filed by the Petitioner.
The Court prima facie, is of the opinion that this is a serious matter where the show cause notice has clearly been fudged with an intent to obtain a favourable order by this Court.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has issued notice to the client, however, the client has not contacted him since after the filing of the review petition.
Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject petition dated 27th February, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of the Petitioner who has deposed the affidavit dated 24th February, 2025 in the subject petition filed before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Further, Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner directed to file an affidavit as to who were the individuals who gave him the SCN which was annexed with the petition and forms the basis of the impugned order passed by this Court while disposing of the subject petition.
The subject writ petition is restored to its original number.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1277
Recalling of order - Validity of the Orders obtained on the basis of the said fabricated SCNs - HELD THAT:- Since all these matters arise out of fabricated SCNs and similar matters are pending before a Co-ordinate Bench of M/s Royal Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi. [2025 (5) TMI 1276 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court is of the opinion that, in order to avoid conflicting orders, it would be expedient that all the cases be dealt with by the Roster Bench where similar matters are pending.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1276
Recalling of order - Order was obtained by Fabrication of the SCN - Deletion of Material Fact from the SCN as supplied to HC - Cancellation of the GST registration retrospectively - Revenue Challenged order [2025 (5) TMI 1275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- Mr. Panwar, ld. Counsel also points out that there are three further SCNs which were challenged in three separate writ petitions, where a similar fabrication has come to the knowledge of the Department.
Thus, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Department that the Department has further proceeded to file more such applications, challenging the respective SCNs in these writ petitions and the same are yet to be listed before this Court.
Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
i. The final order [2025 (5) TMI 1275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] passed by the Court in this writ petition shall stands recalled and any order giving effect to the said order of this Court shall also not be given effect to.
ii. The proprietor of the Petitioner Concern shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
iii. The Registry shall list all the three writ petitions mentioned above, along with the present writ petition, before this Court on the next date.
iv. Intimation shall be given by Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel to the Petitioners in those three cases as well so that they can remain present before this Court.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1275
Cancellation of registration retrospectively - Issuance of Non-reasoned SCNs - HELD THAT:- In view of the case Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and when the impugned order is tested on the aforenoted precepts, it becomes apparent that absence of reasons in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action. We are thus of the considered opinion that the writ petition is entitled to succeed on this short ground alone.
We accordingly allow the writ petition by modifying the impugned order and providing that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration shall come into effect from the date of the SCN i.e. 27 September 2024.
The stipulation in the impugned order of cancellation to come into effect from 25 November 2021 is consequently quashed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1274
Applicability of penalties under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner's failure to pay GST and file returns within the stipulated time - suppression of facts or not - contravention of the provisions of Section 37 of the CGST Act - it was held by High Court that 'Section 74 can be invoked for non-payment of tax if there is evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Non-filing of monthly returns and non-payment of GST can constitute suppression of facts if it is wilful and intended to evade tax. The statutory requirement to file monthly returns and pay GST is independent of the annual return deadline, and non-compliance can attract penalties.'
HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1273
Validity of tender for supply of items in pursuance of an advertisement - seeking to quash the agreement executed - Premature firm - newly constituted firm with a recently issued PAN and GST registration - validity of the contract granted - change in the status of the firm from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm - HELD TAHT:- It is apparent from the record that on the inclusion of the partner in the firm, merely the status of the firm has changed from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm whereas neither the substantive nature of work of the firm has been changed or modified nor it appears to us that any material alteration was made in that firm for the purpose of applying or for the purpose of grant of the tender in favour of the respondent No.5 firm.
Accordingly, the allegations of the petitioner are misconceived being based on no substance.
Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1272
Entitlement to budgetary support for the period July 2017 to September 2017 under the applicable scheme and notifications - rejection of claim on the ground that in terms of the computation prescribed in Circular, dated 27-11-2017, the appellant’s claim for budgetary support, after aggregating the tax liabilities and input tax credit and considering that the balance of input tax credit was in the negative, the appellant was not entitled to any budgetary support for the said period - HELD THAT:- The ‘clarification’ issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Finance Department, bearing No. FD-ST/29/2022-03, dated 26-04-2022, pertains to clarification with respect to determination of amount of reimbursement under (i) SRO 519 dated 21-12-2017 (ii) SRO 521 dated 21-12-2017 and (iii) SRO 63 dated 05-02-2018. All the said SROs pertain to the provision for budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units, operating in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. The SROs detailed the scheme for such budgetary support, in the shape of reimbursement of State taxes paid under the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The scheme, it specified, shall be limited to the tax which accrues to the State Government under the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after adjustment of the input tax credit paid by the manufacturing units. Clause 3.2 of the SRO 519 is similar to clause 5.4 of the Notification dated 05-10-2017.
As the departmental clarification dated 26-04-2022 also envisages month-wise details it stands to reason that claims could be raised accordingly.
The submissions of Deputy Solicitor of India for the respondents No. 1 and 2, not agreed upon, who was of the view that even though there was compliance of the order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directing the adjudicating authority to take steps in terms of the clarification dated 26-04-2022, yet clarification issued subsequently by the DPIIT, Nodal Central Agency, dated 21-09-2023, is to be given more weightage over and above the order of the High Court, which proposition by itself is preposterous and untenable.
Conclusion - Budgetary support under this scheme shall be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis namely for January to March, April to June, July to September & October to December.
The impugned judgment dated 06-05-2024 of the learned single Judge of this Court as also the order dated 01-03-2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 are set aside - appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1271
Detention of vehicle and goods - legality of the seizure - imposition of tax and penalty - No opportunity of proper hearing - violation of natural justice - non-compliance with the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents but despite repeated opportunities, no response has been submitted. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is now listed before the appellate authority on 22.05.2025. And it is submitted that every possible endeavor shall be made by the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal as also the application, referred to above, on the date fixed.
At any rate, he submits that if for any unforeseeable circumstances, the matter is not heard and decided on the date fixed, at best, the appeal as also the application moved by the petitioner shall be finally disposed of within two weeks’ thereafter.
In the wake of the above and, particularly, the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we refrain ourselves from passing any formal order/directions at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, in the event the matter is not decided as indicated above, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this appeal itself for its restoration and necessary orders.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1270
Territorial jurisdiction - Validity of order for attachment against persons outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner - challenge concerning the authority of a Principal Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The matter pertains to jurisdiction and/or authority and/or competence of the officer to issue order under Section 83 of the said Act, I have called upon the learned advocate for the State to make submissions.
Let their appointment be regularized.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1269
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - denial of ITC - HELD THAT:- The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, held that 'Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.'
Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in M/S. HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
The Department submits that he has sought instructions and according to the same, the matter shall be re-considered by the adjudicating authority - the impugned order dated 30th August, 2024 is set aside and the said issue, as captured by this Court in order dated 23rd April, 2025, shall be considered by the adjudicating authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1268
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - Petitioner was not provided with any opportunity for personal hearing and the impugned order was passed without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the above order would show that the reply of the Petitioner has not been considered. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
The impugned order is set aside. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the reply dated 7th November, 2023, filed by the Petitioner and shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1267
Challenge to SCN and consequent orders - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - HELD THAT:- Upon considering the impugned order, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority observed that the reply was incomplete and no supporting documents are attached. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the same does not merit any interference of this Court and a challenge, if any, shall be taken up by the Petitioner before the appellate authority in appeal.
The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July, 2025, to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1266
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notifications Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax, 56/2023-Central Tax, 09/2023-State Tax, and 56/2023-State Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - reply by the Petitioner to the SCN not duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- On facts, however, a reply was filed by the Petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 28th May 2024 and the same was duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority.
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an appeal had already been filed in this matter challenging the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal shall be considered on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Thus, the impugned order is set aside. After hearing the Petitioner, the order shall be passed by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors and the decision in Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1265
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - non-appearance of the Petitioner at the personal hearing - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that an opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, let the Petitioner file an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with pre-deposit by 10th July, 2025.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.[2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of in these terms.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1264
Extension of time limit of issuance of SCN u/s 73 / 74 - Validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax - procedural requirements under Section 168A for prior to the issuance of notifications - No opportunity to file a reply to the SCN - Challenging the SCN and impugned order - original petitioner passed away by the time the order passed, and legal heir representing the case - HELD THAT:- On facts, this Court is of the opinion that a personal hearing ought to be granted to the Petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration to the Adjudicating Authority.
All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. [2025 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER].
Petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1263
Challenge to SCN - challenge to N/N. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 - extension of time limit for adjudication of show cause notices and passing of order - mistake in the filing of Form GSTR-9 due to a clerical error, which led to the issuance of the SCN and the consequent impugned order - HELD THAT:- In light of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that since the reply filed by the Petitioner has not been considered while passing the impugned order, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits.
The impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file a fresh reply to SCN along with supporting documents. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
