9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 112 - 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 - non-application of mind - claim of ITC - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 24.10.2023 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 not supported with complete 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 or documents 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 cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - petition disposed off by way remand.
Issues:
The judgment deals with the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, concerning a demand raised against the Petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Detailed Summary: Issue 1: Consideration of Petitioner's Reply The Petitioner challenges the order dated 28.12.2023, alleging that it did not consider the detailed reply submitted by the Petitioner on 24.10.2023. The Petitioner argues that the order was cryptic and did not take into account the disclosures made in the reply. Issue 2: Adequacy of Supporting Documents The impugned order raised concerns about the completeness of the supporting documents provided by the Petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023. The Proper Officer opined that the reply was not supported with complete and relevant documents, leading to the demand being raised against the Petitioner. Court's Analysis and Decision The Court found the observation in the impugned order regarding the lack of complete documents unsustainable. It noted that the Petitioner had submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents, and the Proper Officer failed to consider the reply on its merits. The Court highlighted that the Proper Officer did not seek further details or documents from the Petitioner before passing the order. Remittance for Re-adjudication Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Court directed the Petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days for re-evaluation by the Proper Officer, who must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. Final Remarks The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. Additionally, the challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time was left open. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
