TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication order deserved to be set aside for breach of natural justice on account of non-service or non-consideration of the reply and denial of personal hearing under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could survive after the order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remanded.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication order deserved to be set aside for breach of natural justice on account of non-service or non-consideration of the reply and denial of personal hearing under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The record showed that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice and no personal hearing had been availed. The Court treated the right to be heard as an integral part of the principles of natural justice, while also noting that the writ petition had been filed belatedly. In these circumstances, the adjudication was not allowed to stand and the matter was directed to be heard afresh on deposit of the demand amount.
Conclusion: The impugned order in original was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, subject to the stipulated deposit, reply, and personal hearing.
Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could survive after the order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remanded.
Analysis: The attachment had been made in aid of recovery pursuant to the adjudication order. Once that order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication, continuation of the attachment was considered unwarranted at that procedural stage.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment was directed to be lifted forthwith.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part by restoring the petitioner to a fresh adjudicatory hearing, while also removing the consequential recovery attachment, with the merits of the tax dispute left open for de novo determination.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication under the GST law proceeds without an effective opportunity of reply and hearing, the order cannot be sustained and must be set aside for fresh decision in accordance with natural justice; consequential recovery measures linked to that order also lose their basis upon remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
