Tax Credit Dispute Resolved: Detailed Evidence Demands Fair Reassessment of GST Claims with Comprehensive Hearing and Response

HC set aside an order under GST Act regarding tax credit claims, finding the original order failed to properly consider the taxpayer's detailed reply. The court remitted the matter for re-adjudication, directing the taxpayer to file a comprehensive response within 30 days and instructing the tax authority to conduct a fresh review with a personal hearing and reasoned order.

---

---

Issues involved: Impugned order under u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not considering detailed reply, sustainability of the order, opportunity for clarification, remittance for re-adjudication.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.03.2024, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 50,00,080.00 under u/s 73 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the order did not consider the detailed reply submitted on 01.02.2024, raising concerns about the lack of justification in the order.

The Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2023 outlined various issues including excess claim Input Tax Credit, under declaration of ineligible ITC, and ITC claimed from specific categories. The petitioner provided a detailed reply under each head. However, the impugned order dismissed the reply as devoid of merits and justification, without proper consideration, leading to doubts about the application of mind by the Proper Officer.

The court found the observation in the impugned order unsustainable as it failed to adequately assess the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. It was noted that the Proper Officer did not seek further details or provide an opportunity for clarification, indicating a lack of due process in the decision-making.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days, following which the Proper Officer was instructed to re-adjudicate the matter, allowing for a personal hearing and issuing a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law.

The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions and reserved all rights and contentions. Additionally, the challenge to Notification No. 9 of 2023 concerning the initial extension of time was left open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

---