9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 827 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - the 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 29.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 25.10.2023 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 29.12.2023 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:
The impugned order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Proper Officer's consideration of petitioner's reply; Adequacy of documents and clarification in the reply. Impugned Order under Section 73: The petitioner challenged an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 5,04,98,487.00 against them under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consideration of Petitioner's Reply: The petitioner contended that their detailed reply dated 25.10.2023 was not considered in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023, which was deemed cryptic by the petitioner's counsel. Adequacy of Documents and Clarification in Reply: The Department issued a Show Cause Notice detailing reasons for the demand, to which the petitioner responded comprehensively under each heading with supporting documents. However, the impugned order found the reply incomplete, unsatisfactory, and lacking adequate documents to clarify the issues raised. The court noted that the impugned order failed to consider the detailed reply with supporting documents submitted by the petitioner. The Proper Officer's opinion that the reply was incomplete and unsatisfactory was deemed unsustainable as it did not reflect a proper consideration of the petitioner's submission. The court further criticized the Proper Officer for not seeking further details if deemed necessary and failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to clarify or furnish additional documents. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was remitted for re-adjudication. 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, provide a personal hearing opportunity, 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 parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions for the parties. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
