Cyber Media Research And Services Limited vs. Goods And Service Tax Officer (Gsto), Ward 96 & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Cyber Media Research and Services Limited, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 26.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were not individually considered, but rather appeared to be a compilation of common passages from various orders, with no discernible application of mind by the adjudicating authority to the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. The High Court had previously noted a pattern of similar orders being issued without addressing specific issues, even to the extent of retaining inconsistent font types.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders demonstrated a palpable non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. This was evident from the fact that the orders appeared to be a verbatim reproduction of common passages, with no specific examination of the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Court noted that even the font types within the orders were not uniform, further highlighting the lack of careful consideration. The respondent conceded to this issue and agreed to a remand. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass an informed decision after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 demonstrate a non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority, rendering them liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority failed to apply its mind to the specific facts and reply submitted by the petitioner. The orders were allegedly generic, cobbled together from common passages, and lacked individual consideration, evidenced by inconsistencies like differing font types within the same order. This indicated a procedural impropriety and a failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent's counsel acknowledged the issue and submitted that the concerned authorities were examining the matter and intended to sensitize adjudicating authorities on the requirement of applying their mind. The respondent agreed to a remand of the matter for fresh consideration.