Facts of the Case
The
petitioner, RSA Impex LLP, challenged a show cause notice dated 31 May 2024 and
the consequent adjudication order dated 20 August 2024 raising a demand of
₹13,38,244. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax
dated 31 March 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28 December
2023 along with corresponding State Tax notifications issued under Section 168A
of the CGST Act extending limitation. A reminder notice dated 06 July 2024
fixed 19 July 2024 as the deadline for filing reply. The petitioner filed its
reply on 24 July 2024, five days after the deadline, and sought a personal
hearing. Although a personal hearing had been fixed earlier on 19 July 2024,
the same was not attended, and no further hearing was granted after filing of
the reply. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order without
considering the reply.
Issues Involved
Whether
the adjudication order passed without consideration of the reply filed by the
assessee was sustainable, whether denial of a personal hearing after submission
of reply violated principles of natural justice, and whether the adjudication
could proceed while the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A
remained pending before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The
petitioner contended that the reply filed on 24 July 2024 was not considered at
all and that the adjudicating authority rejected the case using standard and
non-speaking observations. It was argued that despite requesting a personal
hearing after filing the reply, no opportunity was granted, resulting in
violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also maintained its
challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications issued under Section
168A.
Respondent’s Arguments
The
Revenue submitted that a personal hearing had already been granted on 19 July
2024, which the petitioner failed to attend. It was argued that sufficient
opportunity had been provided and that the adjudication order was validly
passed.
Court Order / Findings
The
Delhi High Court observed that the reply filed by the petitioner was on record
but had not been considered in the impugned order, which merely rejected the
petitioner’s case with a standard one-line observation. The Court held that
once a reply had been filed, the same deserved proper consideration and a
reasoned order. In view of the procedural lapse, the Court set aside the
adjudication order and directed that the reply dated 24 July 2024 be duly
considered after granting the petitioner a personal hearing. The Court
reiterated that the validity of the impugned notifications issued under Section
168A was already under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No.
4240/2025 and before the Delhi High Court in connected matters.
Important Clarification
The
Court clarified that while granting relief on facts by setting aside the
adjudication order for violation of natural justice, it left the issue of
validity of the impugned Central and State Tax notifications under Section 168A
open, and any fresh adjudication would remain subject to the final outcome of
proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
Final Outcome
The
writ petition was disposed of. The adjudication order dated 20 August 2024 was set
aside, the reply filed by the petitioner was directed to be considered afresh
after granting a personal hearing, access to the GST portal was directed to be
provided, and the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order
within three months, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the
validity of the impugned notifications.
Link to Download Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769497555_RSAIMPEXLLPTHROUGHITSAUTHORJSEDREPRESENTATIVEARPITJAINVsCOMMISSIONEROFDGSTORS..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared
with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment