9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Portal were not noticed by the Petitioner. It is also the case of the Petitioner that to the show cause notices issued through Portal, replies were sent to the Respondent. But, again when the Respondent issued reminder notices, dated 11.01.2024, calling for the Petitioner to file additional replies on or before 19.01.2024 and fixing the date of personal hearing on 18.01.2024, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner sought for time of two weeks for filing additional replies by replies dated 18.01.2024 - it is evident that the impugned orders were passed on 29.01.2024 even before the expiry of the two weeks as sought for by the Petitioner on 01.02.2024. It is settled law that if an Assessing Officer intends to confirm a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GSTIN No. 33AAFPJ9173Q1Z3/ 2021-22 and GSTIN No.33AAFPJ9173Q1Z3/2022-23 passed by the Respondent and to quash the same. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a Proprietorship Firm and an Assessee on the file of the Respondent. The Respondent issued show cause notices dated 28.07.2023 for the discrepancies in Input Tax Credits in respect of the assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Though the Petitioner filed replies, the Respondent issued the reminder notices dated 11.01.2024, fixing the date of personal hearing on 18.01.2024 and granting time till 19.01.2024 to file additional replies. The Petitioner sought two weeks time by replies dated 18.01.2024, i.e. till 01.02.2024. Thereafter, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner and that since the replies were filed without any documents, once again the Respondent issued reminder notices and he would fairly submit that no personal hearing was afforded to the Petitioner before passing the impugned orders and that if this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders, appropriate orders may be passed, by putting the Petitioner on terms. 6. Upon examining the impugned orders and the materials placed before this Court, it is evident that it is not the case of the Petitioner that the show cause notices uploaded in the Portal were not noticed by the Petitioner. It is also the case of the Petitioner that to the show cause notices issued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the Petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In such view of the matter, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner to establish their case, on merits and in accordance with law, however, by putting the Petitioner on terms. 9. For the reasons stated above and the above said discussions, the matters in all these Writ Petitions are remanded back to the Respondent for consideration afresh, by setting aside the impugned orders in all these Writ Petitions on condition that the Petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax demand, for each of the assessment years, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
