Bombay HC Remands GST Case of Trendsutra (Pepperfry) for Rehearing

Trendsutra Client Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)

In Trendsutra Client Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court set aside a GST-related order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The petitioner, operating under the “Pepperfry” brand, was issued a notice alleging short payment of GST due to discrepancies between GSTR 2A and 3B returns. Despite filing a detailed reply on 23rd June 2023 and requesting a personal hearing, the adjudicating authority overlooked the reply and passed an order on 3rd July 2023. This led the petitioner to challenge the order through a writ petition. The court found that the petitioner’s request for a hearing was ignored and that the respondents failed to file an affidavit denying these claims. Acknowledging these facts, the court remanded the case for de-novo consideration, instructing the respondent to provide a personal hearing and to issue a reasoned order by 31st October 2024. The recovery notice issued on 19th August 2024 was also quashed. The court clarified that no comments were made on the merits of the case and emphasized that the petitioner must be given at least five working days’ notice before the hearing. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

The matter was argued by Ld.Counsel Bharat Raichandani along with Senior Associate Jasmine Dixit

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1 Petitioner is impugning an order dated 3^rd July 2023 passed by respondent no.4. Mr. Raichandani submitted that in the impugned order it is stated that no reply was submitted to the show cause notice dated 11^th April 2023 and nobody appeared for personal hearing. Whereas, reply dated 23^rd June 2023 was submitted and no personal hearing was granted even though in the reply there was a specific request to grant personal hearing. At Exhibit “G” to the petition is a copy of the reply which was uploaded in the portal. There is also an averment in the petition that a detailed reply, as noted above, was filed. Mr. Raichandani stated that a copy of the petition was served on 18^th December 2023 and copy was provided once again on 20^th August 2024 before an application was made for urgent circulation in view of the recovery notice issued. There is no affidavit in reply filed denying the averments in the petition.

2 In the circumstances, when we confronted the learned Additional GP with all these stark realities, Ms. Vyas stated that the Court may, without going into the merits of the matter, remand the matter for denovo consideration so that an appropriate order, after giving a personal hearing, could be passed.

3 Accordingly, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 3rd July 2023 and remand the matter for denovo consideration to respondent no.4. Consequently the recovery notice dated 19^th August 2024 will not survive and is also accordingly quashed and set aside.

4 Respondent no.4 shall dispose the matter before 31^st October 2024 but before passing any order shall give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of petitioner.

5 Petition disposed. No order as to costs.

6 We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.