9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 293 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner could not file any reply to the notice on the date fixed - challenge to order passed u/s 74 of the UPGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Merit issue of time extension apart, at present it cannot be denied that the only date fixed in the proceedings was 11.03.2024 and that no order came to be passed on that date. It further cannot be denied that no other notice was issued to the petitioner for the date 10.05.2024. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the proceedings were concluded on 11.03.2024 and the adjudication order was reserved. No useful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage - Petitioner may treat the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 to be the final notice issued under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2018-19 based on violation of natural justice principles and non-compliance with procedural rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.05.2024, contending that it was passed in defiance of the rules of natural justice. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 22.02.2024 for a hearing on 11.03.2024. Despite the petitioner's inability to file a reply on the scheduled date, no order was passed, and no further date or notice was provided. The impugned order was issued two months later, leading to the argument that it violated the principles of natural justice. 2. Non-Compliance with Procedural Rules: The petitioner also referred to the minutes of the 53rd GST Council Meeting to assert that they should have been granted time extension in line with the decisions made. However, the court noted that only one date, i.e., 11.03.2024, was fixed in the proceedings, and no order was passed on that date. Furthermore, no additional notice was served for the date of the impugned order, 10.05.2024. The Revenue did not claim that the proceedings were concluded on the initial date fixed. Consequently, the court found that the impugned order was passed without proper compliance with procedural rules. 3. Court's Decision and Directions: The court concluded that the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 could not be sustained due to the non-compliance with rules and the violation of natural justice. As a result, the order was set aside. The court issued specific directions to address the situation, including treating the impugned order as the final notice, allowing the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks with supporting documents, scheduling a hearing within 15 days of compliance, and ensuring expeditious conclusion of adjudication proceedings within three months. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the violation of natural justice and non-compliance with procedural rules, leading to the court's decision and the subsequent directions provided to the parties involved.
|
