Court sets aside order under APGST Act, 2017, for lack of natural justice. Respondent to reissue notice.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order issued under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, for violating principles of natural justice by not considering the petitioner's explanation or providing a personal hearing. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner, allowing an opportunity to present relevant information and to pass a fresh order in compliance with the law and rules. No costs were awarded, and pending applications were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017 without considering explanation and without personal hearing, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a works contractor, challenged an order issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 74(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, claiming an amount towards estimated tax payable based on discrepancies in reported turnover and payments received. The petitioner provided an explanation for the differences but the 2nd respondent issued a summary order without considering the explanation or providing a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner argued that irregular payments by the 3rd respondent led to differences in reported turnover and payments received, which were explained in detail in the submission dated 20.02.2020. Despite this, the 2nd respondent did not consider the explanation properly and passed the order fixing the tax amount. The petitioner requested to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The 2nd respondent's main observation was that the data in CFMS did not match the turnover reported through GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner explained that the differences were due to partial payments received, not complete bills. The 2nd respondent noted that the petitioner did not submit bills raised on the Department to support the claim of amounts received. The crux of the issue was the lack of bill details to show that certain amounts were related to a previous assessment period for which TDS was deducted.

Analysis:
The Court found that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the 2nd respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner for presenting relevant information and to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and rules. No costs were awarded, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

---