HC Remanded Matter to AO Who Passed Order Holding That Reply Wasn’t Satisfactory Without Giving Opportunity to Clarify

Case Details: Realsteel Tyre Company (India) v. Principal Commissioner of GST - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjeev Sachdeva & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
• Sagar Rohtagi, Adv. for the Petitioner. 
• Rajeev Aggarwal, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of tyres. The department issued a show cause notice proposing a demand against the petitioner. It submitted a detailed reply but the GST Officer issued order mentioning that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. It filed writ petition against the demand order and contended that the demand order was passed without providing opportunity of being heard.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the impugned order recorded that petitioner’s reply was not satisfactory. The Court observed that the proper officer had to at least consider reply on merits and then form an opinion whether reply was unsatisfactory. Moreover, the record did not reflect that any such opportunity was given to petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to proper officer for re-adjudication.