Mukesh Kumar Singh vs. The Commissioner Jharkhand Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the respondents' stand that no reply was given to the ASMT-10 notice was factually incorrect, as the petitioner had uploaded documents, including the online reply ASMT-11, along with his appeal (Form GST APL-01). Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was vitiated due to non-consideration of these documents. Furthermore, the Court found that the Appellate Authority violated Section 107(8) of the Act by failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The order of the Appellate Authority was also found to be in violation of Section 107(12) of the Act, as it was not in writing, did not state the points for determination, the decision thereon, or the reasons for the decision. The Court also noted there was no evidence that the Appellate Authority had asked for documents which the petitioner failed to submit. Consequently, both the Appellate Authority's order and the Primary Authority's order were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Primary Authority to issue a notice of hearing, consider the submitted documents, and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner was permitted to file further documents and case law. The respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Singh, is challenging two orders concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2018-19. The Deputy Commissioner (2nd Respondent) passed an order on December 15, 2020, determining that the petitioner had availed excess ITC of Rs. 25,53,145.55 in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-2A. The petitioner claims this order was passed ex parte without notice. He appealed this order to the Joint Commissioner (1st Respondent), who rejected the appeal on February 28, 2022, stating "no valid/lawful document or submission submitted." The petitioner contends the Appellate Authority also failed to provide a hearing or seek further documents. The respondents assert that the petitioner did not reply to notices like ASMT-10 and DRC-01A, leading to the initial order, and that the appeal was rejected due to lack of valid submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 15, 2020, passed by the Deputy Commissioner was vitiated due to non-issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017). 2. Whether the Appellate Authority's order dated February 28, 2022, is in violation of Section 107(8) and Section 107(12) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for failing to provide an opportunity of hearing and not providing a reasoned order? (Question of law, concerning procedural compliance). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the initial order was passed ex parte without notice. He contended that the Appellate Authority also failed to provide a hearing and rejected the appeal without considering submitted documents, specifically mentioning the online reply ASMT-11 to ASMT-10 notice. He relied on case law stating that a mere difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is not a sole basis for denying ITC if the claim is bona fide and genuine. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner did not reply to notices ASMT-10, DRC-01A, or show-cause notice GST DRC-01, justifying the initial order. They admitted the appeal was rejected for lack of valid submissions and argued the primary authority followed the correct procedure. They also claimed the petitioner did not submit documents indicating he had discharged his statutory obligations.