2023 (10) TMI 581 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - no grounds raised by the petitioner, discussed in the impugned order - one-line order - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion, it is a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider the petitioner's case in the light of M/S. REFEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED, M/S. SHERISHA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, BANK MANAGAR, BANK MANAGAR, ICICI BANK 2020 (2) TMI 794 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and pass an order after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months (4) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a Writ Petition seeking to quash an order and direct a reassessment, focusing on tax liability, penalty, and interest calculation.

Tax Liability and Assessment Order:
The petitioner claimed to have paid the entire tax through Input Tax Credit, disputing the tax liability imposed by the respondent. The impugned order was criticized for lacking discussion on the grounds raised by the petitioner, leading the Court to deem it a non-speaking order. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reevaluation in line with legal principles, emphasizing the need for a detailed consideration and a fresh assessment order after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.

Interest Calculation:
The respondent's decision to impose interest on the petitioner was challenged, with the Court noting that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax before the assessment proceedings began. The Court found the interest calculation flawed and directed the respondent to reconsider the case, highlighting the necessity to address the petitioner's submissions and comply with the legal standards set forth in relevant case law. The Court specified a timeframe of four months for the completion of this reassessment process.

Disposition:
In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.