2026 (4) TMI 1220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer, Ward-3, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2), whereby GST demand has been raised against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of insurance brokerage and advisory within financial and insurance service sector and is duly registered under GST regime. Notice under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Act') read with Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'UTGST Act') dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) was issued by respondent No. 2 while scrutinizing returns filed by petitioner for the relevant period i.e. year 2021-22 alleging certain discrepancies in the return and calling upon petitioner to furnish explanation and cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order confirming demand of Rs. 13,42,051/- against the petitioner without considering submissions made therein. 4. The simple case of petitioner in the present case is that the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) raising demand of Rs. 13,42,051/- has been passed without considering reply filed by petitioner on 26.11.2025. Petitioner is challenging the impugned order on the ground that same is a non-speaking order and violative of principles of natural justice as it neither deals nor assigns any reason for rejecting the detailed submissions and documentary evidence placed on record by petitioner in its replies to GST-ASMT-11 and show cause notice seeking quashing of impugned order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-1). 5. On the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....violation of principle of natural justice or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or vires of the Act are under challenge. In the event of any of these eventualities, exercise of writ jurisdiction by Court is fully justified and rather Courts are bound to act and ensure compliance of fundamental rights/principle of natural justice/jurisdiction vested in the authority. This view of mine finds support from judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner titled as Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, 1998 (8) SCC 1, Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 334, Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine ....