Input Tax Credit Transition: Procedural Fairness Prevails as Order Quashed for Lack of Personal Hearing Under CGST Act S. 140 HC set aside an order under CGST Act SS 140 regarding input tax credit transition due to lack of personal hearing. The court remanded the matter for ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Input Tax Credit Transition: Procedural Fairness Prevails as Order Quashed for Lack of Personal Hearing Under CGST Act S. 140
HC set aside an order under CGST Act SS 140 regarding input tax credit transition due to lack of personal hearing. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing respondent to provide reasonable opportunity to petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months. No costs were imposed.
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 140 of CGST Act applying Explanation 3 retrospectively, failure to provide a personal hearing, remand for re-consideration.
The petitioner, a company under liquidation, challenged an order dated 22.12.2023, regarding the transition of input tax credit from the erstwhile regime to the GST regime u/s 140 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that Explanation 3 was applied retrospectively, which according to the counsel was not applicable to sub-section (1), citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court and an interim order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The respondent, represented by Mr. Ramesh Kutty, pointed out that a personal hearing was scheduled on 20.12.2023, which the petitioner did not attend. Instead, the petitioner requested the respondent to submit a claim due to pending liquidation proceedings, as evidenced by a letter dated 18.12.2023.
Upon review, the Court found that the impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel. In order to allow the petitioner to present their arguments before the original authority, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for re-consideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within two months.
In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition on the terms mentioned, without imposing any costs, and closed the related miscellaneous petition.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
