2024 (4) TMI 288 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - under declaration of output tax - the tax on outward supplies under declared on reconciliation of data in GSTR-09 - reconciliation of GSTR-01 with GSRT-09 - excess claim Input Tax Credit - scrutiny of ITC reversals - under declaration of ineligible ITC - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 06.12.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete and not supported by relevant documents which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the impugning of an order dated 28.12.2023 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where a demand of Rs. 3,05,43,710.00 was raised against the Petitioner.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Consideration of Petitioner's Reply
The Petitioner had submitted a detailed reply dated 06.12.2023 to the Show Cause Notice, but the impugned order did not take it into consideration, deeming it incomplete and unsupported by relevant documents. The court found that the Proper Officer did not properly consider the reply and did not give the Petitioner an opportunity to clarify or provide further details.

Issue 2: Sustenance of the Order
The court held that the observation in the impugned order was not sustainable as the reply by the Petitioner was detailed, and the Proper Officer did not apply his mind to it. The court emphasized that if further details were needed, the Petitioner should have been asked, but no such opportunity was given. Therefore, the order was set aside and remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

Issue 3: Re-adjudication Process
The court directed the Proper Officer to inform the Petitioner of any additional details or documents required. Once the Petitioner provides the necessary explanation and documents, the Proper Officer must re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, allowing a personal hearing and issuing a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.