2024 (11) TMI 1401 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been made on a gross non-application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioner - rejection of petitioner's claim for ITC - HELD THAT - This Court finds that there is some merits in the submission of the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order does not even make a reference to the documents that have been filed in the form of E-way bill, Tax invoices, etc., while rejecting the petitioner's claim of entitlement to Input Tax Credit. Further more, in this matter the petitioner is also in possession of lorry receipts, weighbridges, etc. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted one final opportunity to produce all the related documents. The impugned order is thus set aside and the petitioner is granted liberty to submit objections, if any along with the relevant documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such reply or documents are produced within the stipulated period i.e., two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, order would be passed afresh, after considering the reply or document and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity therein. This writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging an impugned order on grounds of non-application of mind, validity of input tax credit under GST Act, lack of supporting documents in assessment proceedings, appealability of order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.01.2024, alleging a gross non-application of mind by the authorities to the objections raised. The petitioner, registered under the GST Act for the assessment year 2021-2022, claimed to have paid appropriate taxes and submitted supporting documents to prove the genuineness of transactions. The impugned order blocked the petitioner's credit, alleging fraudulent availing of credit for supplies by M/s. Balaji Traders without involving goods movement, deeming the transactions fictitious. This was the second round of litigation, with a previous writ petition disposed of by directing the petitioner to resubmit representations. The current impugned order proceeded on the assumption of fictitious transactions due to lack of supporting documents like lorry receipts and E-way bills. The petitioner contended that the order failed to consider the submitted documents, such as E-way bills, tax invoices, and weighbridge receipts, proving the transactions' authenticity. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that lorry receipts and weighbridges were indeed produced, included in the filed set of documents.

The respondents argued that the order was appealable, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. After hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the merit in the petitioner's submission, noting the absence of reference to crucial documents like E-way bills and tax invoices in the impugned order. The Court observed that the petitioner possessed lorry receipts and weighbridges, indicating a potential oversight in the assessment. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner a final opportunity to submit all relevant documents within two weeks. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to present objections and documentary evidence within the stipulated period. Failure to comply within the given timeframe would result in the restoration of the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.