9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1156 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing provided or not - ex-parte order - reversal of input tax credit - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order dated 30.12.2020 2. Challenge to order issued under section 73 of GST Act 3. Challenge to Demand DRC-07 dated 30.12.2020 4. Appeal against rejection of appeal by Appellate Authority 5. Appeal against summary of demand by Appellate Authority 6. Refund of pre-deposit amount 7. Amendment of return GSTR-01 for Credit Note 8. Refund as per assessment order 9. Reversal of Input Tax Credit in the next financial year 10. Direction to refrain from coercive action Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an assessment order dated 30.12.2020, which imposed a cumulative tax liability, interest, and penalty for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The High Court found that the order was bad in law due to a violation of natural justice principles and lack of sufficient reasoning. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order. 2. A challenge was made against an order issued under section 73 of the GST Act. The court noted that the rejection of the petitioner's appeal lacked reasoning and violated natural justice principles. As a result, the court set aside the order and directed the case to be decided afresh by the Assessing Authority. 3. The Demand DRC-07 dated 30.12.2020 was also challenged by the petitioner. The court found that the order lacked sufficient reasoning and violated natural justice principles. Therefore, the court quashed the demand order and directed no coercive steps to be taken against the petitioner during the case's pendency. 4. An appeal against the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority was considered. The court found the rejection order to be cryptic and non-speaking, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed a fresh decision to be made by the Assessing Authority. 5. The petitioner appealed against the summary of demand issued by the Appellate Authority. The court found the summary lacked sufficient reasoning and violated natural justice principles. Hence, the court set aside the summary of demand and directed no coercive action against the petitioner during the case's pendency. 6. The petitioner sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount made. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the required amounts before the next date and additionally deposit thirty percent of the demand raised within four weeks, without prejudice to the parties' rights. 7. A request was made to amend the return GSTR-01 for a Credit Note. The court directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to amend the return accordingly. 8. The petitioner claimed a refund as per the assessment order. The court directed for de-freezing/de-attaching of the bank account(s) of the petitioner and set conditions for further deposits and refunds, subject to the Assessing Officer's order. 9. The petitioner sought to reverse Input Tax Credit in the next financial year. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to reverse the Input Tax Credit as per the GST Act and relevant circulars. 10. A direction was requested to refrain from coercive action. The court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner during the case's pendency, ensuring fairness and justice in the proceedings.
|
