2024 (12) TMI 1283 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Act - lack of reasoning and non-application of mind by the Assistant Commissioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is constrained to observe that the order as passed follows lines identical to those which have come here and have fallen for notice on earlier occasions. The Assistant Commissioner has clearly adopted a template where the only reason assigned is that the reply filed was not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous . This clearly exhibits an abject non-application of mind and the officer repeatedly employing identical phraseology to deal with such matters. Despite caution having been sounded, of the said language having attained the status of a template and the concerned officer having chosen to replicate an identical pattern while framing orders, in INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DELHI DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR. 2024 (12) TMI 131 - DELHI HIGH COURT , it is found that the officer has failed to make any amends. The impugned order of 16 August 2024 is quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging final order under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for lack of reasoning and non-application of mind by the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging a final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had responded to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) before the final order was issued. The order stated that the taxpayer failed to attend the personal hearing despite multiple opportunities and that the reply filed was deemed incomprehensible and ambiguous. The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner had used a standard template in the order, lacking individualized reasoning, indicating a lack of application of mind. This issue of using a template order language was previously highlighted in a separate case, where the officer failed to make any corrections despite prior caution from the court.

The court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and directed the respondents' counsel to present the judgment to the Principal Commissioner for a review of the adjudication process concerning such cases. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 16 August 2024. The respondents were given the liberty to proceed as per the earlier SCN issued, taking into account the petitioner's submitted reply. Importantly, the judgment clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties on merits are preserved for future consideration, leaving the matter open for further legal proceedings.