2025 (6) TMI 100 - HC - GST

Fraudulent availment of iTC - ITC has been availed by fraud or mis-statement - HELD THAT - In the personal affidavit filed by Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeals) Mainpuri pursuant to the order of this Court there is no mention of any provision or notification empowering the authority not passing the judgement on the date fixed but on a later date to which neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was heard on the next date. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in M/s Wonder Enterprises 2024 (9) TMI 1749 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that Once the higher authority under the GST Act and the counsel appearing for the State has accepted the fact that there is no such provision for passing an order on a later date of hearing the impugned order 07.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST AD0905220410341/2022 F.Y. 2018-19 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of the peculiar facts circumstances of the case as noted above the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeals) Mainpuri cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court, through Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J., allowed the writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 10.05.2022 and 25.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Mainpuri and respondent no. 3 under the GST Act. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing glass bottles, was issued a show cause notice under section 74(1) of the GST Act alleging fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner contended that the demand and penalty order were passed without providing a copy of the survey report or opportunity of hearing.Crucially, the Court noted that the appeal order was reserved on 18.09.2024 but delivered on 25.09.2024 without notice to the petitioner, and found no provision in the GST Act permitting reserving judgment and delivering it later without hearing. Relying on the precedent in M/s Wonder Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1150/2024], the Court held that the impugned appellate order "cannot be sustained in the eyes of law" due to procedural infirmity.Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 and remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner for reconsideration de novo, directing that a due opportunity of hearing be granted to all stakeholders and the matter be decided expeditiously within three months.