2024 (5) TMI 268 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT - The impugned order after recording the narration records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unable to clarify the issue - The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the replies dated 25.10.2023, 02.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 filed by the Petitioner are detailed replies 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 unsatisfactory, incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and 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 replies 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 involved: Impugning an order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for demand and penalty.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.12.2023 regarding a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs 2,40,37,812. The order was passed u/s 73 of the Act.

2. The Court accepted the notice, and with the parties' consent, proceeded for final disposal on the same day.

3. The petitioner contended that detailed replies were submitted on 25.10.2023, 02.11.2023, and 14.11.2023, but the impugned order did not consider them adequately.

4. The Show Cause Notice outlined reasons under different headings, to which the petitioner responded with detailed replies and supporting documents.

5. The impugned order found the petitioner's reply incomplete, lacking adequate support, and unable to clarify the issues raised in the Notice. The Proper Officer deemed the reply unsatisfactory.

6. The Court held that the Proper Officer did not properly consider the detailed replies with supporting documents submitted by the petitioner, indicating a lack of application of mind.

7. It was noted that if further details were needed, the Proper Officer should have specifically requested them from the petitioner, which was not done.

8. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

9. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a further reply to the Show Cause Notice, after which the Proper Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the matter and pass a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period.

10. The Court clarified that it did not consider or comment on the merits of the parties' contentions, reserving all rights and contentions.

11. The petition was disposed of in the above terms.

← Previous Next →