9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f time, i.e. less than 2 days, and which is less than 36 hours, and at any costs, it does not merit on the aspect of providing due opportunity. As per the provisions of the Act, sufficient time ought to have been granted for filing their reply, unless and until, sufficient time is granted to the petitioner, they will not be in position to file their reply in an effective manner. This Court is of the view that the impugned orders are wholly untenable not only on the ground of total violation of principles of natural justice but also on other grounds, including failure to pass a speaking order as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - the Writ Petition is allowed, impugned order, viz., the assessment order dated 29.06.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing opportunities have been granted and confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 and passed an order of assessment on 29.06.2023. iv) Challenging the order of assessment dated 29.06.2023 as well as the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner at the threshold submitted that the impugned orders suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be aside. The learned counsel also assailed the impugned orders on the following other grounds:- i) Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that though initially, the second respondent issued a notice dated 22.12.2022 under Section 73 (5) of the Act pointing out certain discrepancies and highlighting the details of alleged tax payable by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 09.01.2023, explaining that the discrepancies pointed out by the second respondent is not correct. However, the second respondent without considering the said reply and without assigning any reasons as to why the explanation/reply made by the petitioner dated 09.01.2023 is not acceptable issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dated 21.06.2023 sought for the following documents;- i) All invoices denoted in GSTR 1, ii) Credit Notes iii) ISD Input invoices as mentioned in the reply in the references; iv) List of eligible ITC v) List of Ineligible ITC and vi) Inward invoices as per GSTR 2A. 4.1 Thus, by summing up the above submissions the learned counsel proceeded to attack the impugned orders by stating that none of the Hearing notices were served upon the petitioner directly but were only uploaded through the online Portal, (which is inclusive of the third Hearing Notice dated 21.06.2023) and insofar as the third Hearing Notice is concerned, it is dated 21.06.2023 (Wednesday) but, unfortunately, the petitioner could not notice the same within time and hence, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent on next working day, i.e on 26.06.2023 (Monday) and requested time for production of documents. However, the second respondent rejected petitioner's request and confirmed the proposals contained in the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2023. 4.2 The learned counsel contended that that day when the third hearing notice of hearing was uploaded was 'Wednesday', i.e. on 21.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for grant of any interim order in favour of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has been afforded with opportunities thrice, despite grating such opportunities, the petitioner was unable to produce documents. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the documents sought by the second respondent in the third hearing notice dated 21.06.2023 are none other than the documents referred to by the petitioner themselves in the reply filed by them, and there would not be any impediment on the part of the petitioner to produce the same, and since the petitioner failed to produce the documents, the second respondent, having given three opportunities to the petitioner, proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice dated 21.04.2023 and has rightly passed the assessment order dated 29.06.2023. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the orders passed by the respondent-Department are wholly tenable. 6. I have given due considerations to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that the respondent-Department has provided three opportunities to the petitioner, but, as righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable time for the petitioner to file their reply along with supportive documents. But on a perusal of all three notices dated i) 21.04.2023 (I opportunity of hearing) ii) 16.06.2023 (II opportunity of hearing) and iii) 21.06.2023 (III opportunity of hearing) it could be clearly seen that the respondent-Department has granted only a limited time of i) 14 days, ii) 4days and iii) three days respectively. Therefore, the so-called three opportunities of hearing given nominally to the petitioner but in reality, the second respondent has not provided any fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth their defence. This Court would further like to point out herein that under the guise of providing opportunity, the assessee should not be called for to file reply within a short span of time, within 2 days insofar as present case is concerned. If done so, the object behind which the provisions of the Act was enacted on the aspect of ''provision of fair opportunity to the assessee'' will not be achieved and the same would lead to depriving away the legal rights of the assessees to defend themselves. 9. That apart, on perusal of the impugned order dated 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
