Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 31 August 2024, passed by the GST Officer, was unsustainable. The Court found that the officer had adopted a template approach, merely stating that the reply was "not comprehensible, conceivable, not perspicuous and is ambiguous," without demonstrating any application of mind to the petitioner's detailed response. This identical phraseology, used in previous cases before this Court, indicated a failure to adjudicate the matter on merits. The Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed afresh based on the original show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner, with all rights and contentions of both parties kept open. The challenge to Notifications No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 was expressly left open to be raised later if required.

Facts

The petitioner, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., is challenging a final order passed by the Goods and Services Tax Officer under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice (DRC-01) was issued for the financial year 2019-20, proposing tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner submitted a reply in DRC-06, but the GST Officer found it "not comprehensive, conceivable, perspicuous and also no one appeared on behalf of the firm to provide explanation/clarification." Consequently, the proposed demand was confirmed. The petitioner contends that their detailed response was perfunctorily dismissed. The Court notes a pattern of similar orders being passed by the same GST Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the final order passed by the Goods and Services Tax Officer under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, confirming the demand, is sustainable in law, given the petitioner's submission of a detailed reply and the officer's reasoning for confirmation. 2. Whether the GST Officer applied their mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner before confirming the demand. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that their detailed reply to the show cause notice was not properly considered and was summarily rejected by the GST Officer. They rely on previous judgments of this Court, specifically Xerox India Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner and Indian Highways Management Company Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., which dealt with identically worded orders exhibiting a non-application of mind. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India & Ors.).