9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 232 - HC - GSTChallenge to adjudication order passed u/s 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 - discrepancies in returns - short payment of tax/excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT - The proper officer should afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, at the same time taking note of the fact that a determination has already been made, the petitioner is directed to deposit towards pre-deposit, with the respondents a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of two weeks from date. In the event the petitioner deposits the aforesaid sum within a period of two weeks from date, the proper officer having regard to the deposit made by the petitioner and in the peculiar facts of the case shall decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to rely on additional documents. The deposit made by the petitioner shall be retained to the credit of the proceeding till a fresh decision is taken by the proper officer. The writ petition is disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to adjudication order under CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 based on lack of proper hearing opportunity. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, alleging discrepancies in tax returns and lack of proper hearing opportunity. The petitioner claimed to have responded to a show cause notice and submitted documents, but the proper officer decided the case without a full hearing. The petitioner argued that the order violated Section 75(4) of the Act, contending that the personal hearing offered was not adequate as it was provided before the deadline for response. The State respondents, however, argued that the petitioner had the opportunity to appear but chose not to, and their advocate requested closure of the case due to unforeseen events. The Court noted conflicting claims regarding the advocate's letter requesting case closure without authorization. The Court directed the petitioner to serve the writ petition on the erstwhile advocate, who then appeared and explained a communication gap leading to the unauthorized letter. The Court, after considering the submissions and peculiar facts, directed the proper officer to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs within two weeks, with the deposit retained for credit until a fresh decision. If the deposit was made timely, the proper officer would reconsider the matter, allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents. The previous adjudication order and demand made in Form GST DRC-07 were set aside as a result of the Court's decision. However, failure to comply with the deposit directive within the specified time would result in dismissal of the writ petition without further reference to the Court. Since no affidavit-in-opposition was filed, the allegations in the writ petition were not deemed admitted by the respondents or the erstwhile advocate. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the provided observations and directions, allowing parties to obtain a certified copy of the order upon fulfilling formalities.
|
