GST Adjudication Order Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Assessee's Reply

GST Adjudication Order Set Aside for Non-Consideration of Assessee’s Reply

Issue: Whether an adjudication order passed under the GST Act is valid when it fails to consider the assessee’s reply to the show cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Facts:

The assessee received a notice in Form GST DRC-01.
The assessee submitted a reply to the notice and appeared for a personal hearing.
However, the adjudication order did not address the contentions raised in the assessee’s reply.

Decision:

The court held that the impugned adjudication order should be set aside and quashed.
The court emphasized that the order was passed without properly considering the assessee’s reply, which amounted to a denial of a fair hearing.
The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the authority.

Key Takeaways:

This case highlights the importance of considering all relevant submissions made by the assessee before passing an adjudication order under the GST Act.
Failure to consider the assessee’s reply to the show cause notice can violate the principles of natural justice and lead to the setting aside of the order.
The court’s decision to quash the order and provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case ensures that decisions are made fairly and transparently, after considering all aspects of the case.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Arkitechno Consultants India (P.) Ltd.

Union of India

Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.31390 of 2024

DECEMBER 20, 2024

R.P. Kar, Senior Adv. and Asit Kumar Dash, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel and Avinash Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and with reference to order dated 12^th December, 2024 presses for hearing and order.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, impugned order was duly made and there should not be interference. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue.

3. Reproduced below is paragraph-1 from said order dated 12^th December, 2024.

“1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client received notice dated 18^th October, 2023 in form GST DRC-01. Reply was submitted and authorized representative of his client appeared for personal hearing, as would appear from impugned adjudication order dated 6^th March, 2024. Referring to discussions and findings given in the order he submits, there is no illumination as to why contentions made in the reply stood rejected. It amounts an order made without hearing his client. He submits, all his client wants is restoration, for purpose of making out effective case for the authority to consider. Consequent actions have been taken, as a result of which his client is unable to file return.”

We do not have answer to the query made. In the circumstances, we presume in favour of petitioner.

4. Impugned adjudication order dated 6^th March, 2024 is set aside and quashed to give petitioner one more opportunity to present its case before the authority. Certified copy of this order is to be communicated by petitioner to opposite party no.2/proper officer by 6^th January, 2025 for obtaining date of hearing. In event of omission to communicate as directed, impugned order will stand restored. Needless to mention, on petitioner availing the opportunity, consequent recovery notice will not be given effect to.

5. The writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.