Manoj Diwakar vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Diwakar, challenged orders dated December 26, 2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice dated September 23, 2023. These orders were issued by Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, and Mr. Amit Kumar, GST Officer, and pertained to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had previously responded to a Scrutiny Notice dated July 13, 2020, for the same period. The petitioner claimed a fraud was committed by their tax consultant. The impugned orders lacked reasoning, did not mention the petitioner's defense regarding the fraud, and did not contain a CRN number or the assessee's name. The Assistant Commissioner's order stated no reply was received, while the GST Officer's order found the submitted reply unsatisfactory.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated December 26, 2023, passed by Mr. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, and Mr. Amit Kumar, GST Officer, suffered from a complete non-application of mind. The Court found that the orders did not advert to the petitioner's defense of fraud by the tax consultant, nor did they properly consider the prior response to the Scrutiny Notice. The absence of reasoning, CRN number, and the assessee's name in the orders indicated a lack of due diligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders. The proper officer was directed to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice dated September 23, 2023, read with the Scrutiny Notice dated July 13, 2020, and the replies filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a supplementary reply, after which the proper officer must pass a fresh speaking order after providing a personal hearing. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of either party's contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated December 26, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the GST Officer, suffer from a complete non-application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind. They contended that the orders failed to consider the petitioner's defense regarding fraud by the tax consultant and did not address the prior response to the Scrutiny Notice. The absence of reasoning, CRN number, and assessee's name in the orders further supported their claim of procedural impropriety. The petitioner relied on the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must apply their mind to the facts and contentions presented. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.