Tax Assessment Invalidated: Lack of Reasoning Leads to Order Reversal Under Section 75(4) of CGST Act

HC allowed petitioner's writ challenging tax orders due to lack of proper reasoning and non-compliance with Section 75(4) of CGST Act. The court set aside the impugned orders, directed respondent to reconsider the case, provide personal hearing, and issue reasoned orders within a month. Matter remitted back for fresh consideration without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to impugned orders directing payment of tax and penalty; Non-consideration of objections by respondent leading to nonspeaking orders.

Issue 1: Non-consideration of objections

The petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the objections filed were not taken into account by the respondent, resulting in nonspeaking orders being passed. The petitioner, in response to previous orders, had clearly outlined objections to identified defects and submitted relevant documents. It was contended that the respondent failed to consider these objections and passed orders without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner invoked Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking to quash the impugned orders.

Decision:
The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, observed that the impugned orders lacked reasoning and failed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the Act. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Court allowed all the Writ Petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner was instructed to submit a comprehensive reply with all necessary documents, not limited to forms. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent in person on a specified date. The respondent was mandated to reconsider the petitioner's case and issue orders within a month from the specified date. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---