9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1434 - HC - GSTViolation of principes of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner - cryptic order - demand including penalty u/s 73 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Since the only reason for passing the impugned order is that petitioner had not filed any reply/explanation, one opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Further, the observation in the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 is also not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 29.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents including invoices, ledger accounts, invoices of weighing bridge and bank statements showing payment made to the supplier. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - 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 orders cannot be sustained and are set aside. The Show Cause Notices dated 22.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 are remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of the orders dated 24.12.2023 and 28.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the demand created against the petitioner based on Show Cause Notices dated 22.09.2023 and 29.09.2023. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Impugned Order dated 24.12.2023 The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.12.2023, contending that they were unable to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2023. The Court observed that the Show Cause Notice was vague and unreasoned, lacking specific details and supporting evidence. The Proper Officer created a demand ex-parte without considering the petitioner's reply. The Court held that the order was unsustainable as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to respond, and remitted the matter for re-adjudication. Issue 2: Impugned Order dated 28.12.2023 The petitioner also challenged the order dated 28.12.2023, arguing that their detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 was not properly considered. The Court found that the Proper Officer did not adequately assess the petitioner's reply, merely dismissing it as unsupported without proper consideration. The Court noted that the petitioner was not given a chance to provide further details or clarifications. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for re-adjudication. Conclusion: In conclusion, the High Court held that the impugned orders dated 24.12.2023 and 28.12.2023 were unsustainable and set them aside. The Show Cause Notices were remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a further reply, and the Proper Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
