2024 (6) TMI 747 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's reply was not considered - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned orders, it is noticeable that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice is referred to therein but no findings are recorded in respect of reasons for rejecting such reply. The petitioner has placed on record the replies to the show cause notice. The petitioner has replied separately to each defect. On examining the reply, for instance in respect of defect no.1 relating to the difference between the petitioner's GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 statement, it is noticeable that the petitioner has explained the discrepancy in considerable detail. I find no discussion on the explanation of the petitioner. Instead, it is recorded that the reply is not in order. On account of the failure of the respondent to duly consider the petitioner's reply and record reasons for rejecting such reply, orders impugned herein cannot be sustained. The impugned orders in original are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to orders in original u/s 13.03.2024 for distinct assessment periods due to non-consideration of petitioner's reply.

Summary:
In the present case, the petitioner challenged orders in original dated 13.03.2024 for distinct assessment periods, contending that their replies were not duly considered. The petitioner had submitted separate replies for each defect identified during an inspection of their business premises. The impugned orders confirmed tax proposals without specifying reasons for rejecting the petitioner's replies, leading to the challenge.

The petitioner's counsel argued that while the replies were referred to in relation to each defect, the tax proposals were confirmed without proper justification for rejecting the replies. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that principles of natural justice were followed through intimation, show cause notices, and personal hearing notices.

Upon perusal of the impugned orders, it was observed that the petitioner's replies were acknowledged but no specific findings were recorded for rejecting them. The lack of detailed consideration of the petitioner's explanations led to the unsustainability of the impugned orders. Consequently, the High Court set aside the original orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration.

The Court allowed the petitioner to submit additional documents within two weeks for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue fresh orders within three months from the receipt of additional documents. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.