Statutory response period under GST must be honoured before further action, or the demand becomes unsustainable.

Under Section 61 of the CGST Act, further action before expiry of the minimum 30-day response period rendered the demand procedurally unfair and contrary to natural justice. The notices and consequential demand were issued in a sequence that curtailed the petitioners' statutory time to reply, so the demand order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh action after granting adequate time to file responses.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand order could be sustained when further action was taken before the expiry of the 30-day period contemplated for response under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether the impugned proceedings violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The notices and subsequent demand were issued in a sequence that curtailed the time available to the petitioners to submit their replies. Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was treated as requiring a minimum period of 30 days before further steps could be taken. Since further action had commenced before the petitioners were afforded the statutory time to respond, the proceedings were held to be procedurally unfair.

Conclusion: The demand order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh action after granting adequate time to file responses.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires a minimum response period before further action, any demand or consequential order passed before expiry of that period is unsustainable for breach of statutory procedure and natural justice.

---