9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 616 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner submits that Petitioner had filed a detailed reply however the impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - Seeking stay of the operation of impugned order - HELD THAT - The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 25.10.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is incomplete not duly supported by adequate documents not clear and unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 cannot be sustained and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved: Stay of impugned order, disposal of Show Cause Notice u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017, consideration of reply by Proper Officer.
Stay of Impugned Order: The petitioner sought a stay of the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 but expressed willingness for remittance of the matter for reconsideration of the Show Cause Notice without prejudice to rights and contentions. Disposal of Show Cause Notice u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017: The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 disposed of the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023, proposing a demand of Rs. 1,58,54,742.00 against the Petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 25.10.2023, but the impugned order did not consider it adequately, deeming it incomplete and unsatisfactory. Consideration of Reply by Proper Officer: The Proper Officer opined that the petitioner's reply was incomplete, unsupported by adequate documents, unclear, and unsatisfactory. However, the Court found the Officer did not properly consider the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. The Court held that the Officer did not apply his mind to the reply, and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify or provide further details. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Final Disposal: The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days, following which the Proper Officer would re-adjudicate the matter after a personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the contentions of either party, and all rights and contentions were reserved. The challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 regarding the initial extension of time was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
