Tax Dispute Resolved: Procedural Errors Invalidate Adjudication Notice, Ensuring Petitioner's Right to Fair Hearing and Document Submission

HC quashed the Adjudication Notice and Order under KGST/CGST Act, 2017 due to procedural irregularities. The court found the respondent incorrectly calculated delay in reply submission and denied the petitioner reasonable opportunity to present documents. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration, with directions for a fair personal hearing and proper legal procedure.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of Adjudication Notice and Order under KGST/CGST Act, 2017 for lack of opportunity and violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash the Adjudication Notice and subsequent Order issued under the KGST/CGST Act, 2017, alleging a lack of opportunity and violation of natural justice. The petitioner contended that, despite requesting time to locate invoices for blocked credit, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing a reasonable opportunity. The petitioner argued that the respondent erred in calculating the delay in submission of the reply, as the Adjudication Notice was issued on 31.01.2023, and the subsequent order was passed on 19.04.2023. The petitioner claimed that there was no delay of 768 days, as incorrectly concluded by the respondent. The High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order, stating that the petition lacked merit.

The Court noted that the respondent's error lay in incorrectly computing the delay in submitting the reply, as the Adjudication Notice was issued on 31.01.2023, and the petitioner had requested an extension of time. The Court emphasized that the delay was not 768 days, as claimed by the respondent. The Court found that the petitioner had not been provided with a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to respond. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on a specified date to submit the necessary documents and response. The respondent was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that as the respondent had already provided the Excel Worksheet to the petitioner, the issue of providing further records/documents did not arise in this case.

---