2024 (5) TMI 1039 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-application of mind - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The impugned order after recording the narration records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is devoid of merits without any justification or proper reconciliation. The reply filed by the petitioner gave full particulars with regard to the tax paid on outward supplies under declared on reconciliation of data in GSTR-09 through DRC-03 as pointed out by the department by the impugned order. The demand towards the taxes on the output supplies which were alleged to be under declared have been dropped. With regard to the other issues the observation in the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 20.02.2024 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. The impugned order dated 24.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside in respect of the issues that have been held against the Petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Impugned order u/s 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 24.04.2024, disposing of a Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023, which proposed a demand of Rs. 2,92,00,063.00 u/s 73 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the order did not consider their detailed reply dated 20.02.2024. The Show Cause Notice raised various grounds, including declaration of output tax, reconciliation of data in GSTR-09, E-way bill turnover, Input Tax Credit, and ineligible ITC. The petitioner provided a detailed reply with supporting documents. However, the impugned order found the reply devoid of merits without proper reconciliation, except for the tax on outward supplies, which was dropped as the tax had been paid. The court held that the Proper Officer did not properly consider the petitioner's reply, lacked justification, and did not seek further details before upholding the demand on other issues. The impugned order was set aside for those issues and remitted for re-adjudication, allowing the petitioner to file a further reply within 30 days. The Proper Officer was directed to pass a fresh order within the prescribed period. The court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case, reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of replies by tax authorities and the need for justification and reconciliation in tax matters.