9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 489 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not aware of the proceedings which resulted in passing of the order whereby huge demand has been created against the petitioner - HELD THAT - The manner of passing of order dated 11.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act which requires that the proper officer in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis of the decision are totally missing from the order dated 11.04.2024. Even if no response was filed to the notices under Section 61 and 73 of the Act it was incumbent on the respondent no. 2 to pass an order in compliance of provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notice while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Incorrect Uploading of Notices Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act pertains to the determination of tax not paid or short paid. The procedural aspect involves issuing a notice to the taxpayer to allow them to present their case. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The petitioner argued that the notices were uploaded on the wrong tab, which led to their unawareness and inability to respond. However, the court noted that a reminder was issued on 14.02.2024, with specific indications made on the portal since 16.01.2024. Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the reminder issued post 16.01.2024 diminished the significance of the claim regarding incorrect uploading. Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the petitioner's failure to respond post-reminder weakened their argument about the incorrect uploading. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner had ample opportunity to respond post-reminder, which the court found convincing. Conclusions: The court concluded that the issue of incorrect uploading was not substantial enough to invalidate the proceedings. 2. Compliance with Section 75(6) of the Act Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 75(6) mandates that the adjudicating officer must detail the relevant facts and basis for their decision in the order. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court observed that the order dated 11.04.2024 merely referenced the issuance of notices and the lack of response, without detailing the facts or reasoning behind the decision. Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of any substantive reasoning or factual basis in the order, which is a statutory requirement under Section 75(6). Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 75(6) to the facts, highlighting the necessity for the order to be self-contained and reasoned, which was not the case here. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument that the lack of response justified the order was insufficient, as procedural compliance with Section 75(6) is mandatory. Conclusions: The court found the order non-compliant with Section 75(6) and thus invalid. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The court emphasized, "The manner of passing of order dated 11.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision'. Core Principles Established: Compliance with procedural requirements is essential for the validity of tax orders. Orders must be self-contained and reasoned, detailing the facts and basis of the decision. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the order dated 11.04.2024 due to non-compliance with Section 75(6) and remanded the matter to respondent no. 3. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice within three weeks, with a directive for a fresh order to be passed post-hearing.
|
