9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 524 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing not provided before issuance of SCN - Reversal of ITC - HELD THAT - The impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner and without considering the contentions advanced before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. Solely with a view to provide another opportunity to the petitioner to canvass these contentions before the original authority the order impugned herein calls for interference. The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 140 of CGST Act applying Explanation 3 retrospectively, failure to provide a personal hearing, remand for re-consideration.
The petitioner, a company under liquidation, challenged an order dated 22.12.2023, regarding the transition of input tax credit from the erstwhile regime to the GST regime u/s 140 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that Explanation 3 was applied retrospectively, which according to the counsel was not applicable to sub-section (1), citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court and an interim order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The respondent, represented by Mr. Ramesh Kutty, pointed out that a personal hearing was scheduled on 20.12.2023, which the petitioner did not attend. Instead, the petitioner requested the respondent to submit a claim due to pending liquidation proceedings, as evidenced by a letter dated 18.12.2023. Upon review, the Court found that the impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel. In order to allow the petitioner to present their arguments before the original authority, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for re-consideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within two months. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition on the terms mentioned, without imposing any costs, and closed the related miscellaneous petition.
|
