2024 (8) TMI 242 - HC - GST

Challenge to SCN issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)/ the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act) - unreasoned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the plain reading of the impugned order that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner - Plainly, the impugned order is an unreasoned order and therefore, cannot be sustained. It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning Show Cause Notice and Order under CGST Act/DGST Act.
2. Challenging Notification extending time for order under Section 73(9) of CGST Act.
3. Consideration of contentions in the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30.09.2023 and the subsequent order dated 31.12.2023 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act) concerning her deceased husband. The Adjudicating Authority proposed a demand of &8377;29,31,73,600/-, including interest, for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner, widow of the deceased taxpayer, submitted a detailed reply to the SCN, informing about her husband's demise, cancellation of GST registration, and disputing the tax liability amount. However, the impugned order failed to consider the petitioner's contentions, leading to the court deeming it unreasoned and unsustainable.

Issue 2:
The petitioner also contested Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which extended the time for passing an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for the financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20. However, the counsel for the petitioner did not press this challenge during the proceedings, resulting in no specific orders being issued regarding the impugned Notification.

Issue 3:
The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta, observed that the impugned order lacked a reasoned consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to confirm the demand without addressing the petitioner's contentions was deemed arbitrary and unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending applications also being resolved in the process.