TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST appellate order set aside for violating natural justice principles under Section 107 CGST Act 2017</h1> <h3>M/s. Epragathi Recycling Versus The State Of Karnataka, The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, The Joint Commissioner Of Goods & Service Tax, (Appeals-6) Bengaluru</h3> The Karnataka HC set aside an appellate order dated 14.07.2022 and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh reconsideration in ... Maintainability of appeal - fair and sufficient opportunity of hearing provided to the Petitioner or not - non-application of mind - principles of natural justice - Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Under identical circumstances, this Court in the case of M/S. SHRI MAHILA GRIHA UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) -2, BENGALURU; THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUDIT-2. 1, BENGALURU [2022 (9) TMI 1050 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], has set aside the impugned endorsement and remitted back the matter to respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority for re-consideration in accordance with law. In the said order, this Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and since the issue in controversy involved in both the petitions are identical, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Issues involved:Petitioner seeks writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash appeal order, audit report, ADT-02, and notice issued by respondent No.4 for the assessment period 2017-18. Additionally, petitioner requests direction for respondent No.3 to grant an opportunity for case consideration and to follow the law declared by the Court.Analysis:1. Writ of Certiorari for Appeal Order by Respondent No.3:The petitioner sought to quash the appeal order passed by respondent No.3 for the assessment period 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the facts were identical to a previous case where the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Court agreed with the petitioner and quashed the order, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration by respondent No.3.2. Writ of Certiorari for Audit Report by Respondent No.4:Similarly, the petitioner requested the quashing of the audit report/observation passed by respondent No.4 for the assessment period 2017-18. The Court noted that the impugned endorsement was unreasoned and failed to consider the relevant sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court quashed the audit report and remitted the matter back for re-consideration by respondent No.4.3. Writ of Certiorari for ADT-02 by Respondent No.4:The petitioner also sought to quash the ADT-02 issued by respondent No.4 for the assessment period 2017-18. The Court, in line with its previous judgment, found merit in the petitioner's arguments and quashed the ADT-02, directing a fresh consideration by respondent No.4.4. Writ of Certiorari for Notice under Section 73(1) by Respondent No.4:The petitioner further requested the quashing of the notice issued under Section 73(1) of the KGST Act/CGST Act for the assessment period 2017-18 by respondent No.4. The Court, following the pattern of its previous decisions, quashed the notice and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by respondent No.4.5. Writ of Mandamus for Case Consideration by Respondent No.3:In addition to the certiorari reliefs, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to grant an opportunity for case consideration and to follow the law declared by the Court. The Court allowed this relief, quashing the order passed by respondent No.3 and remitting the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with law.6. Final Order and Directions:In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the respective authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court emphasized keeping all rival contentions open and expressed no opinion on the same. Additionally, the Court directed that pending matters should be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
