2025 (6) TMI 1868 - HC - GST

Adjudication Order quashed for failing to provide reasons and reproduce show cause notice under Section 75(6)

The Allahabad HC quashed an Adjudication Order dated 13th August 2024 under Section 73 of CGST/UPGST Act for being legally deficient. The Court found the ... Challenge to Adjudication Order u/s 73 of CGST/UPGST Act - failure to file reply to the notice sent by the respondent-department - HELD THAT:- The manner of passing of order dated 13th August, 2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 13th August, 2024. Even if no response was filed to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to pass an order in compliance of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act, as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notice while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order. The order dated 13th August, 2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.5/Commercial Tax Officer, Sector-5, Bareilly, U.P. to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand. The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition challenging the Adjudication Order dated 13th August 2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, held that the impugned order was legally deficient. The Court noted that the order merely reproduced the show cause notice without applying judicial mind or setting out 'the relevant facts and the basis of his decision' as mandated by Section 75(6) of the Act. The Court emphasized that 'a final order should be self contained' and that mere reference to the notice is insufficient. Despite the petitioner's failure to file a reply, the Adjudicating Authority was 'incumbent... to pass an order in compliance of the provisions of Section 75(6).' Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the authority to provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond within four weeks and to pass a reasoned order thereafter.