2025 (2) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsideration afresh. The matter shall stand remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh and bearing in mind the response which had been submitted by the petitioner.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajat Mittal, Mr. Suprateek Neogi, Ms. Priyanshu , Advs For the Respondent : Mr. Sumit Batra , SSC ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs : - "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order, dated 29.04.2024, bearing Order Reference No. ZD0704240668370 passed by the Respondent No 3. ii) To issue appropriate writ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned SCN was issued, included the observations as to the difference in turnover reflected in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B; difference in tax liability as reflected in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B; reconciliation of turnover; and difference in the amount of Input Tax Credit reported, amongst others. 6. The petitioner responded to the impugned SCN and submitted a detailed reply on the points as raised in the impugned SCN. 7. It is apparent from the plain reading of the impugned order that the petitioner's response has not been considered. The Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order confirming the demand as set out in the impugned SCN and rejected the reply furnished by the petitioner. 8. The only reason set out in the impugned order for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter would merely serve as extending the period of time available for making the proper order which should not be in conformity with the legislative intent of specifying a specific period for passing such orders." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, states that the Adjudicating Authority had clearly failed to bear in consideration the reply as submitted by the petitioner and that the petitioner was also perhaps not provided an opportunity of hearing. In view of the above, it was suggested that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remanded for consideration afresh. 4. Accordingly and for the aforesaid reasons, we allow the instant petition and quash the order dated 29 April 2024. 5. The matte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X