Case Law Details
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Learned AAG Shri Shah submitted that as the petitioner’s representative failed to appear before the officer on 22.06.2022 in terms of the opportunity fore hearing provided vide note-sheet dated 30.05.2022, there was no requirement for the officer to have waited any further before passing the impugned order.
However, Shri Shah and Shri Sunil Bhandari, Advocate, representing the State GST Department are not in a position to dispute the fact that the detailed written submissions filed by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice were not adverted to in the impugned orders.
Having considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and after going through the pleadings of the petitioner, reply filed on behalf of the respondents and the impugned orders, it is clear on the face of the record that the officer did not consider the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner while passing the impugned orders which are sketchy and non-speaking on the face of it. Thus, the impugned orders, apart from suffering from the vice of non-application of mind to the reply of the party, also run in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, which required that The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.
Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
