2022 (3) TMI 545 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned orders have been passed without compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) of the respective Goods and Service Tax enactments, 2017 - impugned orders proceeds as if the petitioner has not replied to the respective show cause notices which preceded the impugned orders - HELD THAT - The petitioner has made a first attempt to reply to the show cause notice, after the impugned orders have been passed on 09.11.2021. The petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Service Tax enactments. Considering the fact that the petitioner would be required to deposit only 10% of the amount as a condition for pre-deposit, the impugned order is quashed in turn, subject to the petitioner paying a sum of ₹ 7.5 lakhs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such deposit is made by the petitioner within such period, the respondents shall pass a fresh order after calling the petitioner for a hearing within a period of 60 days thereafter - the writ petition stands disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to impugned orders for assessment years 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 based on non-compliance of Section 75(4) of Goods and Service Tax enactments.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the impugned orders for the assessment years 2018-2019 to 2021-2022, contending that they were passed without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Service Tax enactments. The petitioner argued that they had replied to the show cause notices before the expiry of 30 days, even though there was no dated acknowledgment for the reply filed. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notices dated 28.09.2021 before the impugned orders were passed on 09.11.2021. The respondent presented a copy of the belated reply filed on 12.11.2021, which was sealed by the department. The respondent urged the court to dismiss the writ petition and advised the petitioner to seek recourse through an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the court noted that the petitioner's attempt to reply to the show cause notice was made after the impugned orders had been issued. The court highlighted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax enactments. However, taking into account that the petitioner would need to deposit only 10% of the amount as a pre-deposit condition, the court decided to quash the impugned orders on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of ?7.5 lakhs within 30 days from receiving a copy of the order. If the deposit is made within the specified period, the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order after granting a hearing to the petitioner within 60 days. The quashed orders were to be treated as corrigendum to the show cause notices, allowing the petitioner to provide a proper reply. Failure to deposit the prescribed amount within 30 days would result in the impugned orders being revived automatically without further intervention from the court.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above observations, without imposing any costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed in light of the judgment.