2025 (8) TMI 781 - HC - GST

Violation of natural justice found for non-application of mind; order quashed and case remanded under proper procedure

The HC found a violation of natural justice due to non-application of mind by the respondent, as the petitioner did not properly utilize the opportunity ... Violation of principles of natural justice - non-application of mind - petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided, by not submitting a reply to the Inspection Officer at the time of inspection and that the petitioner has merely reiterated the contents of the earlier reply - HELD THAT:- The impugned order indicates a total non-application of mind. The respondent is required to independently examine the available records and arrive at a reasoned conclusion as to whether the statements recorded on 11.07.2024 and 12.07.2024, the reply dated 15.07.2024 and the reply in Form DRC-06 dated 08.04.2025, collectively make out a case for confirming the demand or for dropping the same. The impugned order stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 relating to the tax period 2024-2025, following an inspection conducted on 11 and 12 July 2024. Despite submitting a sworn statement and a detailed reply with over 200 pages of supporting documents, the respondent held that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to reply during the inspection and merely reiterated earlier submissions during adjudication. The impugned order criticized the petitioner for not filing objections to the show cause notice issued on 09.01.2025, stating the petitioner 'should not go back from the statement made duly verified and signed with reference to records during the time of inspection.' The Court found this reasoning demonstrated a 'total non-application of mind,' emphasizing that the respondent must independently examine all records-the statements recorded during inspection, the initial reply, and the later reply in Form DRC-06-to reach a reasoned conclusion on whether to confirm or drop the demand. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with law, directing that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before final orders. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly without costs.