Reconciliation statement and extended limitation under GST quashed and remanded for fresh hearing; authority to decide within twelve weeks.

The note addresses failure of the adjudicating authority to consider a reconciliation statement and the claim of extended period of limitation under the GST statutory regime; the authoritys perfunctory treatment of limitation contentions is criticised and such contentions must be adjudicated on merit, with the reconciliation statement examined. The adjudicating authority is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order, and to pass the necessary fresh order within twelve weeks from receipt of the direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority's observation that no reconciliation statement in respect of MIS report generated from SAP was submitted by the taxpayer is correct; (ii) Whether the contention regarding extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was considered by the adjudicating authority; (iii) Whether the matter requires remand and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority's finding that no reconciliation statement was submitted is correct.

Analysis: The Court examined the record and accepted the respondent's contemporaneous communication that a reconciliation statement had been submitted by the taxpayer, and found the impugned order's specific observation (paragraph 19.4) asserting non-submission to be contrary to the record. The Court treated the submission as part of the record and noted the need for the adjudicating authority to consider that reconciliation statement in any fresh decision.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority's observation that no reconciliation statement was submitted is incorrect and is quashed and set aside insofar as it records non-submission.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority dealt with the petitioner's contention regarding the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the impugned order and found only a perfunctory three-line observation that did not address the specific limitation contention raised by the petitioner in its reply; the Court directed that this contention be dealt with by the adjudicating authority in the fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority failed to adequately consider the petitioner's contention on extended limitation under Section 74 and shall address this issue when deciding afresh.

Issue (iii): Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication and whether the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Given the incorrect factual finding on submission of the reconciliation statement and the inadequate treatment of the limitation issue, the Court found it necessary in the interest of justice to remit the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the adjudicating authority consider the reconciliation statement and the limitation contention and afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing prior to passing a fresh order, with a time limit for disposal.

Conclusion: The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after considering the reconciliation statement and the limitation issue, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing; the adjudicating authority is directed to pass necessary order within 12 weeks from receipt of this order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed insofar as it incorrectly records non-submission of the reconciliation statement; the matter is remanded for fresh consideration of all issues (except those expressly accepted by the petitioner), including the limitation question, and for affording the petitioner a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudicating authority records a factual finding of non-submission of documents that is contrary to the record, the finding must be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication so that the authority can consider the actual submissions (including reconciliation statements) and relevant limitation contentions after affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing.

---