GST demand set aside for non-application of mind where supplier's existence was rejected without proper consideration of reply and records.

The GST demand order could not be sustained where the supplier was treated as fictitious and non-existent without proper consideration of the taxpayer's reply and supporting documents, including invoices and return-based input tax credit material. The Court found non-application of mind in treating a large business concern as non-existent without tangible basis. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with liberty to file an additional reply and with notice and personal hearing to be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order confirming the GST demand could be sustained when the supplier was treated as non-existent without proper consideration of the reply and supporting materials, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The respondent proceeded on the footing that the supplier was a fictitious and non-existent entity, but the materials placed before the Court indicated that the petitioner had furnished a reply, invoices, and supporting documents, including a claim that the input tax credit reflected in the returns. The order impugned showed non-application of mind in treating a large business concern as non-existent without tangible basis. In these circumstances, the adverse order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after allowing the petitioner to file additional reply and after issuing notice and granting personal hearing.

---