Abhishek Jain. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated August 27, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. This order followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on May 20, 2024, alleging incorrect declaration of tax liability in annual returns. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the SCN. However, the impugned order, as quoted in the judgment, stated that the petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory, and despite opportunities for personal hearing, no further satisfactory reply was received, leading to an ex-parte demand. The petitioner argued that the final order failed to consider their submitted reply.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated August 27, 2024, was vitiated by non-consideration of the petitioner's reply. The Court observed that the final order neither alluded to nor took into consideration the reply submitted by the writ petitioner, making it wholly unreasoned. The respondents conceded that the matter could be remitted for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the concerned Sales Tax Officer to examine it afresh, bearing in mind the reply submitted by the petitioner, and to proceed in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated August 27, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated by non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The petitioner contended that the impugned order was wholly unreasoned and failed to allude to or take into consideration the detailed reply submitted by them in response to the Show Cause Notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that instead of retaining the petition, the ends of justice would be met by remitting the matter back to the authority for a fresh consideration.