9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 993 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - whether petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charges levelled in the impugned show cause notice? - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - The petitioner had responded to the show cause notice and the same should have been considered and dealt with in the impugned order dated 6th July 2021. Respondent No.2 not having done that impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside which we hereby do. The matter is remanded for denovo consideration. Before passing any order which shall be within eight weeks from today petitioner shall be given a personal hearing notice whereof shall be given atleast seven working days in advance. If petitioner wish to file any written submissions petitioner may do so within three working days of the personal hearing. It is also noted that this is one more case where respondents have passed such order without applying its mind and without considering the records. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Impugning an order on grounds of failure to consider petitioner's reply to show cause notice and failure to address tax liability on reverse charge basis. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order dated 30th June 2021, arguing that Respondent No.2 erroneously stated that no reply was submitted to the charges in the show cause notice. The petitioner had indeed responded with a detailed reply dated 9th December 2019, along with various documents. Despite this, the impugned order was issued without considering the petitioner's submissions. The court noted that the petitioner's response was not taken into account by Respondent No.2, leading to the order being quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the petitioner granted a personal hearing and the opportunity to submit written submissions within three working days post the hearing. The court criticized Respondent No.2 for passing orders without proper consideration and noted that the impugned order lacked due diligence. It was emphasized that the court did not make any observations on the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural irregularities in the respondent's actions. The petition was disposed of, with the court ensuring that the petitioner's right to be heard and present submissions was upheld during the reconsideration of the matter. Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of due process and the duty of authorities to consider all relevant submissions before issuing orders. The court's decision to quash the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration underscored the significance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings, ensuring that the petitioner's rights were protected and that all aspects, including the tax liability on a reverse charge basis, were appropriately addressed in the reconsideration process.
|
