9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 50 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 23.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents, unable to clarify the issue 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 impugned order dated 30.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The show cause notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
The judgment involves the impugning of an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where a demand was raised against the petitioner. Detailed Summary: Issue 1: Consideration of Petitioner's Reply The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.12.2023, claiming that their detailed reply dated 23.10.2023 was not considered in the said order, which disposed of the Show Cause Notice proposing a significant demand against the petitioner. Issue 2: Adequacy of Petitioner's Reply The Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 outlined various reasons for the demand, to which the petitioner responded comprehensively under each head with supporting documents. However, the impugned order stated that the reply was incomplete, not supported by adequate documents, and unable to clarify the issue, without proper consideration of the submitted documents. Issue 3: Lack of Proper Consideration The judgment found that the Proper Officer did not adequately consider the petitioner's detailed reply and merely concluded that it was insufficient without a thorough examination. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to apply their mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner, leading to an unsustainable observation in the impugned order. Issue 4: Opportunity for Clarification The court noted that if the Proper Officer required further details, they should have specifically requested them from the petitioner. However, there was no evidence that such an opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify the reply or provide additional documents or details. Decision: In light of the above, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was set aside, and the show cause notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a further reply, and the Proper Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the notice, provide a personal hearing, and pass a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act. The court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the contentions of either party, reserving all rights and contentions. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
