2025 (2) TMI 664 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order and also the order passed on the rectification petition under Section 161 of the GST Act - order has been passed without assigning any reason while rejecting the petitioner s objection - violation of principles of natural justice - The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they would redo the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent shall pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner taking into account the reply and any document that may be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

The petitioner, a dealer registered under the GST Act, challenged an order dated 30.04.2024, which rejected the petitioner's objection regarding discrepancies in output tax declaration and input tax credit claims. The petitioner contended that the order lacked reasoning, constituting a non-speaking order. The respondent agreed to reassess after providing the petitioner with a hearing. The Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the respondent to issue a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner and considering any submitted documents.Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the order dated 30.04.2024, rejecting the petitioner's objection, was valid and reasoned.2. Whether the respondent should reassess the petitioner's case after providing a hearing.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:The petitioner raised concerns about discrepancies in output tax declaration and input tax credit claims, citing errors in auto-population of tables in GSTR forms. The petitioner's objection highlighted the need for cross-referencing GSTR forms to verify the accuracy of claims. However, the impugned order merely stated that the petitioner's reply was unacceptable without providing any reasoning, leading to the challenge of it being a non-speaking order.The Court considered the lack of reasoning in the impugned order as a procedural flaw, emphasizing the importance of providing a rationale for decisions. The respondent agreed to reassess the petitioner's case after granting a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, indicating a willingness to rectify the procedural deficiency.Significant Holdings:The Court set aside the impugned orders due to the lack of reasoning, emphasizing the necessity of issuing speaking orders in administrative decisions. The directive for a reassessment with a hearing underscored the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.In conclusion, the Court's decision to quash the impugned orders and instruct a reasoned reassessment after a hearing reflects a commitment to procedural fairness and transparency in administrative actions under the GST Act.