9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 744 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been passed without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner pursuant to the SCN - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the petitioner in his reply to the SCN has set out the ledger account in respect of the supplies received from eight named suppliers along with the bills. However, the impugned order does not refer to the same or provides any reason why the petitioner s claim was found to be unmerited. The impugned order also indicates that since the petitioner s reply was found to be unsatisfactory, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. This is incorrect. The petitioner claims that date of personal hearing before the Proper Officer was mentioned in the SCN which was obviously prior to petitioner s reply to the SCN and not pursuant to any queries that the concerned officer had in respect of the reply to the SCN. It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned officer for consideration afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Impugned order under CGST Act and DGST Act raising tax demand. Challenge on grounds of non-consideration of contentions, incorrect officer issuing order, and lack of justification in the order.
In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 24.04.2024 under the CGST Act and DGST Act, raising a tax demand of &8377;88,89,593. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without considering any of the contentions raised in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the order was not issued by the officer who issued the SCN. The SCN alleged incorrect tax filling on inward supplies, prompting the petitioner to explain the underdeclared tax amount. The petitioner responded to the SCN, denying the alleged Input Tax Credit claims and providing detailed ledger accounts and invoices to support its position. The impugned order, however, failed to address the petitioner's contentions adequately. It merely dismissed the petitioner's reply as lacking merit without proper justification or reconciliation. The order did not reference the ledger accounts provided by the petitioner or explain why the claims were deemed unmerited. Furthermore, the order incorrectly stated that a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner following the unsatisfactory reply, which was not the case as the hearing date was mentioned in the SCN before the petitioner's response. Considering the deficiencies in the impugned order, the court set it aside and remanded the matter to the concerned officer for a fresh review. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reconciliation statement and relevant documents within three weeks for the officer's reconsideration. The court clarified that its decision to set aside the order did not imply a judgment on the merits of the petitioner's challenge. All rights and contentions of the parties were preserved, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
