9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1355 - HC - GSTExtension 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 - HELD THAT - In view of the peculiar circumstances and bearing in mind the period that has lapsed between the assessment years and the issuance of the SCN the impugned order is set aside. Considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025 to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of the SCN issuance in light of limitation period under Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the limitation period for issuing a show cause notice for recovery of tax not paid or short paid, or erroneously refunded, typically within three years from the relevant date. The limitation period is a substantive safeguard to prevent stale claims. The Court noted that the Financial Year under scrutiny was 2019-20, and ordinarily, the limitation period for issuing the SCN would have expired in 2023. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the limitation period was extended by a statutory notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023, which effectively revived or extended the time frame for issuance of SCNs beyond the original limitation period. The Court held that this extension legally enabled the Department to issue the SCN dated 31st May 2024. Key evidence and findings: The SCN itself was scrutinized, revealing that discrepancies were noted between returns filed under GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, and GSTR-2B, indicating potential under-reporting of tax liability or excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Department relied on data available on the GST portal to issue the SCN under Section 73 with interest and penalty demands. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the extension notification was a valid legislative act that extended the limitation period, thereby rendering the issuance of the SCN within the extended limitation period permissible. Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioner contended that the SCN was issued after the lapse of the original limitation period and thus was invalid. The Court rejected this argument based on the extension notification. Conclusion: The issuance of the SCN was held to be legally valid due to the statutory extension of limitation. Issue 2: Whether the Petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned order Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require that a person affected by a quasi-judicial order must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before adverse orders are passed. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates personal hearing before passing an order based on the SCN. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Petitioner had not filed any reply to the SCN and was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed. The Petitioner's representative submitted that due to the advanced age of the company's proprietor and the lapse of time, the SCN was effectively missed and no chance to respond was provided. Key evidence and findings: The record indicated that the Petitioner had not responded to the SCN and that the impugned order was passed without any further reference to the Petitioner. The Court found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. Application of law to facts: The Court held that since no reply was filed and no personal hearing was conducted, the impugned order could not stand. The failure to provide a proper hearing was a procedural infirmity warranting interference. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the SCN and opportunity to appear were issued as per procedure. The Court found that mere issuance of SCN and direction to appear did not suffice if the Petitioner was not effectively heard before passing the order. Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on grounds of denial of opportunity to be heard, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner a proper hearing. Issue 3: Appropriate remedy and directions going forward Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court is empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash orders passed without following due process and to issue directions for fresh adjudication. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Considering the lapse of time and the Petitioner's willingness to respond, the Court directed that the Petitioner be granted time till 10th July 2025 to file a reply to the SCN. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to issue a personal hearing notice thereafter and consider the Petitioner's submissions before passing a fresh order. Key evidence and findings: The Court took note of the Petitioner's submission regarding the proprietor's age and the delay in issuance of SCN, which justified a lenient approach in granting time and opportunity. Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the Department's right to recover tax with the Petitioner's right to be heard and procedural fairness, thereby ensuring compliance with natural justice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's interest in timely recovery was acknowledged, but procedural fairness was held paramount. Conclusion: The matter was remanded with clear directions for fresh adjudication after hearing the Petitioner, with all rights and remedies preserved for both parties
|
