9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 452 - 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 - demand including penalty - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 11.10.2023 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 that the reply is not satisfactory and no proper reply justifying the facts of the case along with supporting documents have been submitted nor has the taxpayer appeared for a hearing - Despite the fact that petitioner has filed a reply, the Proper Officer has held that neither he has filed a proper reply nor appeared for a hearing which ex-facie shows that the 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 05.12.2023 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: Impugned order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Proper consideration of petitioner's reply; Setting aside of the impugned order for re-adjudication.
Impugned order under Section 73: The petitioner challenged an order dated 05.12.2023 which disposed of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 1,08,84,820.00 against the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. Proper consideration of petitioner's reply: The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply dated 11.10.2023 to the Show Cause Notice, addressing various issues raised by the Department with supporting documents. However, the impugned order found the reply unsatisfactory without proper consideration, stating that no proper reply justifying the facts of the case was submitted. Setting aside of the impugned order for re-adjudication: The Court held that the Proper Officer did not properly consider the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner and did not provide an opportunity for clarification or further details. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to file a further reply within 30 days, after which the Proper Officer must re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, giving an opportunity for a personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the contentions of either party, and all rights and contentions were reserved. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
