2026 (2) TMI 1392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner has been held liable for tax for the period July 2017 to March, 2018 on the ground of excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). 2. Initially, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner no. 1 (hereafter "the petitioner") on February 21, 2023. The said notice only contained the chart indicating the taxes alleged to be payable by the petitioner without the requisite details. 3. The petitioner replied to the said notice to show cause on March 09, 2023. Thereafter, an adjudication order under Section 73 of the said Act of 2017 was passed on May 29, 2023. 4. The said adjudication order was also bereft of the factual narration and the ground on which the ultimate conclusion was based. 5. Subsequently, on June 05, 202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted that the said order had been passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017. 12. Mr. Ray further submits that the adjudication order uploaded subsequently on June 05, 2023 also suffers from the same vices. The same was also not preceded by any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same is also bereft of the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. It is submitted that both the orders carry an earlier intimation in Form ASMT10 as an annexure instead of the detailed adjudication order. 13. It is then submitted that in any case the petitioners are not liable to pay anything inasmuch as by the order dated June 09, 2023, the proper officer had acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....19. Secondly, the adjudication order impugned dated May 29, 2023 is wholly unreasoned and is, therefore, in abject violation of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the said Act of 2017. It is not in dispute that the said order which clearly visits the petitioner with adverse consequences has been passed without hearing the petitioners which is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act of 2017 apart from the violation of principles of natural justice even in usual course. On that ground too the adjudication order cannot withstand scrutiny under judicial review. 20. The second repetition of the same adjudication order on June 05, 2023 was clearly without authority. Similarly the order dated June 09, 2023 communica....