9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 965 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order passed without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - ex-parte demand - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply, however the impugned order records that neither filed any reply nor appeared in person . Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply submitted by the Petitioner on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the no reply has been filed which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner. The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Petition disposed of by way of remand.
Issues involved: Impugning order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on a Show Cause Notice issued after cancellation of GST registration, failure to consider petitioner's detailed reply, sustainability of the impugned order, remittance to Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.11.2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023, resulting in a demand of Rs. 1,52,60,614.00 against the petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in trading optical items, had closed down business activities in 2022 and applied for cancellation of GST registration, which was canceled from 31.03.2022. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 was issued after one year of the GST registration cancellation order, despite having submitted a detailed reply on 20.10.2023. The impugned order dated 29.11.2023 was criticized for not considering the petitioner's detailed reply and being cryptic in nature, creating a demand ex-parte without due consideration. The impugned order failed to acknowledge the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, stating that no reply was filed, indicating a lack of proper consideration by the Proper Officer. The Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to the failure to consider the petitioner's reply and directed the matter to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Proper Officer was instructed to provide necessary details/documents to the petitioner, who must then furnish the required explanation and documents for re-adjudication, followed by a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions, ultimately disposing of the petition accordingly.
|
