2024 (5) TMI 43 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the request submitted by the Petitioner for extension of time - cryptic order - HELD THAT - Section 75(5) of the Act stipulates that, if sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer shall adjourn the hearing, however, not more than three adjournments may be granted - Though in terms of Section 75(5) of the Act three adjournments maybe granted, it is not mandatory for the proper officer to grant three adjournments. Adjournment is not a right. Said provisions empowers the proper officer to grant upto three adjournments, if sufficient cause is shown. It would be dependent on the facts of each case whether sufficient cause has been shown or not for exercise of the discretion to adjourn. In the present case, it is noticed that the order is a cryptic order and a prayer is made on behalf of petitioner for one opportunity to file reply, accordingly the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 is set aside and the show cause notice is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication - Petitioner shall file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, the Proper Officer shall re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Impugning an order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding a demand raised against the petitioner based on a Show Cause Notice.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 19.12.2023 which disposed of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 15,19,68,460.00 against the petitioner u/s 73 of the Act. The petitioner sought additional time for reply and personal hearing, but the impugned order did not consider these requests, leading to a cryptic order creating an ex-parte demand. The Proper Officer noted that despite opportunities, the petitioner did not provide explanations or attend the personal hearing.

The petitioner argued that despite seeking adjournments for personal hearings, they were not granted as per Section 75(5) of the Act. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner failed to file a detailed reply or appear in person despite opportunities given.

The Court observed that the order was cryptic and set it aside, remitting the Show Cause Notice for re-adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days, after which the Proper Officer would re-adjudicate the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law within the prescribed period u/s 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it did not consider the merits of the contentions, and all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved.