Shri Munibyre Gowda Ganesh vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Munibyregowda Ganesh, challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.2021 and an Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2023, both issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST East Commissionerate. The petitioner's authorized representative, a Chartered Accountant, attended the personal hearing on 11.07.2022 and stated that the works undertaken were Government contracts. However, the petitioner could not furnish copies of these contracts as the noticee was hospitalized. The respondent authority proceeded to pass the order without these documents. The Order-in-Original noted that Work Orders/Agreements for the Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were not produced.

Held

The Court held that the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2023 was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the respondent authority had proceeded to pass the order without considering the petitioner's explanation for not furnishing the Work Orders/Agreements, which were crucial to establish that the work executed was for Government entities. The Court found that the petitioner's contentions made out a case for remanding the matter. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant documents, especially when the inability to do so is due to circumstances beyond their control like hospitalization, is liable to be set aside. The Court quashed the Order-in-Original and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was permitted to produce the supporting documents, and the respondent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders after considering them and the contentions regarding liability. All contentions were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2023, passed without considering the petitioner's inability to produce Government contract documents due to hospitalization, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the work done pursuant to Work Orders from State Government Departments should fall within the exemption list. The order was passed in the absence of crucial documents that would have established the work was for a Government entity. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration upon the petitioner producing these documents. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.