AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act'). 4. A show-cause notice dated 6.8.2024 was issued in Form GST DRC-01 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why Input IGST Credit of Rs. 1,46,31,093/- should not be demanded on account of violation of provisions of Section 16(2) of the GST Act together with interest and penalty. 5. The petitioner filed its reply on 8.8.2024 in Form GST DRC-06 providing information and documents including Invoices, E-way-bills, Lorry Receipts, Way Slips, Ledger Accounts so as to establish that the transactions of purchases made by the petitioner were bonafide and conditions stipulated in Section 16(2) of the GST Act are complied with by the petitioner and allegation with respect to ineligible ITC was based on retrospective cancellation of GST registration of the vendors of the petitioner. It was also contended that the registration of the suppliers were active at the time of making purchases by the petitioner. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the reply having been filed by the petitioner within two days from the date of issue of show-cause Notice, respondent No. 2 passed an ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2024 stating that no reply has been filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersonal hearing. either in person or via virtual mode, on four distinct dates ie 10.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 13.11.2024, and 13.12.2024. lt is submitted significant time gaps between each these four that there was a hearing dates. It is respectfully submitted that all four hearing notices were dispatched by registered post to the Petitioner's registered address, M/s Multi Metal Industries, SF-33, Dinubhai Estate, GIDC Industrial Estate, Vatva. Ahmedabad - 382445.lt is submitted that the final hearing notice dated 13.12.2024 was also sent to the email address registered on the GSTN portal. It is submitted that all registered post notices were returned with the remark 'left'. Having said that, it is acknowledged herein that the Petitioner is presently operating from the aforementioned address, as evincing from the address in the cause title of the petitioner in memo of the Special Civil Application. A copy of the all four returned notices stating the remark "Left" is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-R1 Colly" 5.4 With reference to paragraph no 3.6, it is submitted that the answering respondent does not offer any comments. 5.5. With reference to parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd passed the impugned order. The appellant had the knowledge of the proceedings but neither any reply to the show cause notice was given nor it chase to appear before the Additional DGFT to make oral submissions. Thus, it is a clear case where proper opportunity was given to the appellant to reply to show cause notice and to make oral submissions, if any. However, fault lies with the appellant in not availing of these opportunities. The appellant cannot now turn around and blame the respondents by alleging that the Additional DGFT violated principles of natural justice or did not give sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present its case." 12. The above reply filed by the respondent No. 2 is apparently contrary to the record, as is evident from Page-52, which is a copy of the Form GST DRC-06 obtained from GSTN Portal, which clearly shows that the petitioner has filed the reply on 8.8.2024 along with various documents which were uploaded with the reply. 13. A further affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Ahmedabad to explain the circumstances in which the earlier affidavit-in-reply was filed, as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent case, the inadvertent failure to consider the Petitioner's reply owing to its non-visibility under the allocated case ID on the GST portal due to technical reasons constitutes such an omission. Therefore, the Respondents seek the gracious leave of this Hon'ble Court to rectify the impugned Order-in-Original under Section 161 of the Act. The Respondents further seek time to accord the Petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard before undertaking any such rectification, in adherence to the principles of natural justice and applicable legal provisions. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Order-in-Original unequivocally demonstrate that the Adjudicating Authority extended ample opportunities to the Petitioner herein to file their defense reply or to appear for a personal hearing, either in person or via virtual mode, on four distinct dates i.e 10.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 13.11.2024, and 13.12.2024. It is submitted that there were significant time intervals between each these four hearing dates. It is respectfully submitted that all four hearing notices were dispatched by speed post to the Petitioner's registered address available at GST Por....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdirected to junk mail because of predesigned settings of the email system. Hence junk mail box should also be checked regularly to ensure none of the important mails including those of replies to PH notices or replies to SCNs are missed. 3. Personal Hearing letter issued to the noticee should itself contain the link for virtual hearing instead of sending the link subsequent to issue of PH letter. 4. In such cases where the SCN is taken up for ex-parte adjudication due to non-appearance by the noticee or/and non-receipt of reply to SCN the noticee/authorized representative should be contacted through an e-mail on the registered E-mail Id or the email provided in response to PH/telephone to check/confirm filing of reply to the SCN. The said fact and its outcome should be invariably mentioned in Adjudication order. 5. It has been noticed that in some cases where SCN has been issued by Preventive but the same does not get transferred to the adjudicating authority through BO but the reply has been filed by the assessee which gets reflected in the tasks of statutory functions of adjudicating authority and not in the Assessment/adjudication function, the said ....