https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765356 An adjudication under section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act cannot be sustained where the authority fails to consider the taxpayer's reply to ASMT-10 and does not disclose the basis of the proposed demand. The taxpayer had specifically disputed the comparison of GSTR-3B data with e-way bill data, but the order merely stated that the reply was unsatisfactory without dealing with that objection. The HC held that natural justice required disclosure of the breakup of the alleged difference, a personal hearing, and a reasoned decision after considering the reply. The impugned determination was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:24:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765356 An adjudication under section 73 of the Jharkhand GST Act cannot be sustained where the authority fails to consider the taxpayer's reply to ASMT-10 and does not disclose the basis of the proposed demand. The taxpayer had specifically disputed the comparison of GSTR-3B data with e-way bill data, but the order merely stated that the reply was unsatisfactory without dealing with that objection. The HC held that natural justice required disclosure of the breakup of the alleged difference, a personal hearing, and a reasoned decision after considering the reply. The impugned determination was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws GST Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765356