2024 (5) TMI 1313 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not fully take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and has passed a cryptic order - order u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 does not take into consideration all the points raised in the reply by the petitioner. Proper Officer had to at least examine the complete reply along with documents submitted by the petitioner and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply filed by the petitioner is partially found non satisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the complete reply submitted by the petitioner. The matter is remitted for reconsideration of the issues - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Impugned order u/s 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Proper consideration of petitioner's reply; Partial satisfaction of reply; Re-adjudication of specific points; Supplementary reply filing; Opportunity for personal hearing.

In the judgment, the petitioner challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 8,79,33,598.00. The petitioner contended that their detailed reply was not fully considered, leading to a cryptic order. The Department raised various grounds in the Show Cause Notice, to which the petitioner responded with detailed disclosures and supporting documents. However, the impugned order found the reply partially unsatisfactory without fully considering all points raised by the petitioner, indicating a lack of proper examination by the Proper Officer.

The Court set aside the impugned order in part and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication on specific points where the reply was deemed unsatisfactory, including excess input tax credit claimed and ineligible ITC. Points where the reply was found satisfactory were not interfered with. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a supplementary reply within two weeks, and the Proper Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, provide a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order within the prescribed period u/s 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the contentions, and all rights and contentions of parties were reserved. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding time extension was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.