Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 617 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner - cryptic order - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 07.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is devoid of merits and without any justification, which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. The impugned order dated 15.02.2024 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding a demand raised against the Petitioner. Detailed Summary: 1. The Petitioner challenged an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 7,87,18,296.00 u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended that they were not well-versed with GST return filing procedures and had submitted corrected returns along with a detailed reply, which was not considered adequately in the impugned order. 2. Upon perusal, it was found that the Department had raised concerns under separate headings such as excess claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and Invalid ITC u/s 16(4). The Petitioner had furnished a detailed reply addressing each of these concerns. 3. However, the impugned order dismissed the Petitioner's reply as devoid of merits and justification, without proper consideration. The Proper Officer opined that the reply lacked justification, indicating a failure to apply proper scrutiny. 4. The Court held that the Proper Officer did not adequately consider the detailed reply submitted by the Petitioner and failed to seek further clarification or documents if deemed necessary. As a result, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and the matter was remitted for re-adjudication. 5. The Court directed the Petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days, following which the Proper Officer was instructed to re-adjudicate the matter, allowing for a personal hearing and issuing a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act. 6. It was clarified that the Court did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions, and all rights and contentions were preserved. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|