2024 (10) TMI 1298 - HC - GST

Non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of exempted supplies - impugned order does not indicate the reasons - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the impugned order is unreasoned inasmuch as it does not consider the explanation as provided by the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for considering afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under CGST Act, non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exempted supplies, unreasoned impugned order, consideration of petitioner's response by Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) regarding the non-reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exempted supplies. The impugned order confirmed a demand of Rupees Eight Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Six, including interest and penalty, based on a Show Cause Notice proposing the demand. The petitioner contested the assumption that its outward supplies were exempted from tax, providing detailed explanations in response to the Show Cause Notice. However, the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's response by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the conclusion that the order was unreasoned as it failed to address the petitioner's contentions adequately.

The petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice highlighted that the sales of used motor vehicles, which formed part of the exempted supply amount, should not be considered exempt under the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the sales of used motor vehicles did not fall under the definition of exempt supply as per Section 2(47) of the CGST Act, emphasizing that it was not necessary to reverse the ITC claimed against these sales. Despite the detailed submissions made by the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority's observations in the impugned order did not acknowledge or address the petitioner's contentions effectively, leading to the lack of reasoning in the order.

During the proceedings, the respondents' counsel agreed to the remand of the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a reevaluation, directing the Authority to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed the petition in these terms and disposed of the pending application accordingly. The decision highlighted the importance of considering and addressing the submissions made by parties in adjudicating tax matters under the CGST Act to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process.