2026 (4) TMI 57 - HC - GST

Waiver scheme order set aside for lack of effective hearing, with matter remanded for fresh consideration.

The waiver order partly allowing and partly rejecting the petitioner's request was set aside because the petitioner had not been given an effective ... Partial rejection of the petitioner's waiver claim - belated filing of the annual return in GSTR-9 - clarifications issued in Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST - Opportunity of Hearing - Absence of appellate remedy - Remand for reconsideration of waiver claim. Absence of appellate remedy - Waiver claim under Rule 164(10) - HELD THAT: - The Court did not decide the petitioner's entitlement to waiver on merits. It noted that the order under the waiver scheme had partly allowed and partly rejected the claim, and that there was no specific provision for filing an appeal against such order. Having regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner, and also noticing from the impugned order that the petitioner had not appeared before the authority despite notice, the Court held that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to appear before the same authority and present its case, leaving all factual and legal contentions open for fresh consideration. [Paras 6, 7] The order passed under the waiver scheme was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent to reconsider the request for waiver after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file its reply and supporting documents. Final Conclusion: The Court allowed the writ petition only to the extent of setting aside the order passed on the waiver request and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. No finding was rendered on the merits of the waiver claim, and all factual and legal contentions were left open before the authority. Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's request for waiver in part under the waiver scheme deserved interference and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.Analysis: The impugned waiver order had partly allowed and partly rejected the request, and the record showed that the petitioner had not been given an effective opportunity before the authority. In such circumstances, and in the absence of a specific appeal provision against the order passed under the scheme, the appropriate course was to grant the petitioner another opportunity to place its case before the same authority. The authority was also directed to consider the matter afresh on facts and law.Conclusion: The challenge was accepted to the extent necessary to set aside the order passed under Rule 164(10) and remit the matter for reconsideration after hearing the petitioner.Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a fresh opportunity before the authority, and the waiver dispute was sent back for a fresh decision.