Kalpatru Projects International Limited (Earlier Known As Jmc Projects (INDIA) Limited) vs. Goods And Service Tax Officer (Gsto) Ward 49, 52 And 53 & Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner, Kalpatru Projects International Limited, challenged an order dated 28.12.2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 24.09.2023 and raised a demand of Rs. 7,86,84,337.00, including penalty, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the SCN on 07.11.2023. The impugned order stated that the Petitioner's reply was not satisfactory and, since no further explanation was received, a demand was created ex-parte. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to consider their detailed reply.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 was not sustainable. The reasoning was that the Proper Officer had failed to consider the Petitioner's detailed reply dated 07.11.2023 on its merits. The observation that the reply was 'not found to be satisfactory' without a proper examination indicated a lack of application of mind. The Court also noted that if further details were required, the Proper Officer should have sought them from the Petitioner, and the record did not show any such opportunity being given. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days, and the Proper Officer was to pass a fresh speaking order after granting a personal hearing, within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of either party's contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is sustainable when it fails to consider the detailed reply submitted by the Petitioner on 07.11.2023? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was cryptic and did not take into consideration the detailed reply, along with supporting documents, that they had filed. They asserted that the Proper Officer had not applied their mind to the merits of the reply. Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that if the Proper Officer required further clarification or documents, they should have specifically sought them, which was not done. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or the respondent GST Officer.