GST Demand Order Partially Upheld: Technical Portal Issues Lead to Remand for Fresh Adjudication with Personal Hearing Opportunity

HC allowed petitioner's challenge to GST demand order for 2018-19. Despite confirming most demands, court remanded matter to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, noting technical portal glitches and inconsistent treatment of similar demands in subsequent tax period. Petitioner granted opportunity for personal hearing, with impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under CGST Act and DGST Act for financial year 2018-19 based on impugned SCN, mismatch of GSTR-01 with GSTR-09, technical glitch in GST portal functionality, dropping of proposed demands, statutory remedy of appeal, remand to adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging an order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (DGST Act) for the financial year 2018-19. The impugned order was based on a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 08.01.2024, which proposed separate demands under various grounds. The petitioner contested the proposed demands, particularly a substantial demand of Rs. 31,13,79,219 based on a mismatch between GSTR-01 and GSTR-09 due to a technical glitch in the GST portal functionality.

The adjudicating authority confirmed most of the demands but dropped two proposed demands after considering the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner argued that a similar technical glitch persisted in the next tax period for 2019-20, which was acknowledged by the authority in a subsequent order dated 25.08.2024. As a result, the demands based on similar grounds for the subsequent period were dropped. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and requested a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

Although the petitioner had the option to appeal, the court decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration due to the narrow scope of the controversy and the authority's examination of the issue for the subsequent period. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and a pending application was also resolved. The scheduled hearing was canceled in light of the court's decision.

---