9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1308 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - Validity of order u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017 - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 09.01.2024 and 27.02.2024 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 not properly replied/filed without any justification 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 29.04.2024 cannot be sustained and is set aside - Petition disposed off.
Issues: Impugned order disposal, demand raised under CGST Act, consideration of petitioner's reply, sustainability of the order, lack of justification in officer's opinion, opportunity for clarification, remittance for re-adjudication, filing of further reply, fresh speaking order, challenge to Notification No. 56 of 2023.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that despite submitting detailed replies with supporting documents, the impugned order did not consider the responses adequately. The Department had raised various grounds in the Show Cause Notice, and the petitioner had provided detailed responses under each head. However, the order stated that the reply was not properly filed without sufficient justification, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Proper Officer. The High Court found the observation in the impugned order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were detailed and supported by documents. The Court noted that the Proper Officer failed to consider the replies on merits and did not seek further details if needed. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the Show Cause Notice for re-adjudication. The petitioner was given 30 days to file a further reply, after which the Proper Officer was directed to pass a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period under the Act. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. Additionally, the challenge to Notification No. 56 of 2023 regarding the extension of time was left open. The petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms, emphasizing the need for a fair re-adjudication process and proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions.
|
