2024 (7) TMI 990 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration - it is contended that the petitioner submitted a brief reply and did not annex any documentary evidence, including the bank statement - HELD THAT - By the reply dated 24.10.2023, the petitioner asserted that no purchases were made in financial year 2017-2018. He further stated that there were no transactions in the bank account, but did not attach the bank statement. The petitioner also did not attach the stock register or any other documents to corroborate the assertion that there were no purchases. Consequently, it is necessary to put the petitioner on terms. The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit an additional reply along with supporting documents within the aforesaid period. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
Assailed order for not considering petitioner's reply, compliance with principles of natural justice, lack of documentary evidence, setting aside the impugned order, conditions for remand, submission of additional reply with supporting documents, providing a reasonable opportunity, timeline for fresh order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assailed Order and Consideration of Petitioner's Reply
The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.12.2023, arguing that their reply was not taken into account. The petitioner claimed to have ceased business during the financial year 2017-2018 and filed a nil return in Form GSTR 1. Upon receiving a show cause notice alleging purchases worth Rs. 81,54,282/-, the petitioner responded on 24.10.2023, denying making any purchases during the said financial year. The impugned order was issued based on these circumstances.

Issue 2: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner's counsel contended that the assessing officer should have conducted an inquiry at the alleged suppliers' end to verify the purchases, stating that the petitioner should not be required to prove a negative. Additionally, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.

Issue 3: Lack of Documentary Evidence
The government pleader argued that natural justice principles were adhered to through the issuance of intimation and show cause notices, along with considering the petitioner's reply. However, it was noted that the petitioner's reply lacked documentary evidence, such as the bank statement, stock register, or any other supporting documents to substantiate the claim of no purchases during the financial year in question.

Issue 4: Setting Aside the Impugned Order
Considering the lack of documentary evidence provided by the petitioner, the court set aside the order dated 29.12.2023 on the condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was also granted the opportunity to submit an additional reply with supporting documents within the specified period.

Issue 5: Conditions for Remand and Fresh Order
Upon receiving the remittance and additional reply, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the receipt of the additional reply.

Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned conditions, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

← Previous Next →