9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 286 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner in full consideration and has passed a cryptic order - under declaration of output tax - excess claim Input Tax Credit - ITC claimed from cancelled dealers - return defaulters - tax non-payers - HELD THAT - The impugned order, however, after recording the narration, records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is insufficient and unsatisfactory. The impugned order does not specifically deal with the reply dated 23.10.2023 given by the petitioner, however, refers to certain judgment to hold that the burden to prove admissibility of any input tax credit cannot be shifted to the Tax Authorities. The Proper Officer has not even considered the reply of the petitioner along with the enclosed documents and merely held that the burden cannot be shifted on the Tax Authorities. The Proper Officer had to examine the documents submitted by the petitioner and then hold whether the input tax credit is admissible or not. The Proper Officer has not stated as to why such transactions are not acceptable. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer to re-adjudicate the issues - impugned order set aside - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved: Impugning an order under u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on a Show Cause Notice.
Summary: Issue 1: Petitioner challenges an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 44,48,488.00 under u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contends that their detailed reply was not fully considered in the impugned order, which raised a demand including penalty against them. The Show Cause Notice outlined various issues such as under-declaration of output tax, excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), and ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, return defaulters, and tax non-payers. The Petitioner provided a detailed reply addressing each of these heads. However, the impugned order found the Petitioner's reply insufficient and unsatisfactory, leading to the creation of a demand under certain points while dropping the demand under excess claim of ITC. The Court held that the Proper Officer failed to properly consider the Petitioner's reply and supporting documents, emphasizing that the burden of proving ITC admissibility cannot be shifted to the Tax Authorities without due examination. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for re-adjudication on specific points, excluding the one already decided in favor of the Petitioner. The Court directed the Petitioner to submit any further necessary documents within two weeks for re-adjudication by the Proper Officer, ensuring a fresh speaking order in compliance with the law within the prescribed period. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions, reserving all rights and contentions for the parties. Therefore, the petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms.
|
