https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757806 A GST demand order could not stand because the authority failed to consider the taxpayer's reply filed on the portal and proceeded as if no response had been submitted. The order was treated as non-speaking and passed without application of mind, with no proper consideration of the objections raised. The absence of a meaningful personal hearing was also held to breach the procedural safeguard under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Madras HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authority to examine the reply and pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 22:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757806 A GST demand order could not stand because the authority failed to consider the taxpayer's reply filed on the portal and proceeded as if no response had been submitted. The order was treated as non-speaking and passed without application of mind, with no proper consideration of the objections raised. The absence of a meaningful personal hearing was also held to breach the procedural safeguard under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Madras HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authority to examine the reply and pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757806