Petitioner impugns Notification No. 9 of 2023 whereby the limitation period for exercise of power under Section 73 of the CGST Act. Petitioner also impugns order whereby the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act have been concluded and a demand has been created against the petitioner. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the explanation was sufficient or not. He merely held that no proper reply/explanation has been received which ex-facie shows that proper officer has not even looked at the reply submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside

The finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the instant writ petition is allowed with the directions to the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner.

Petitioner impugns Notification No. 9 of 2023 whereby the limitation period for exercise of power under Section 73 of the CGST Act has been extended. Petitioner also impugns order whereby the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act have been concluded and a demand has been created against the petitioner. The proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the explanation was sufficient or not. He merely held that no proper reply/explanation has been received which ex-facie shows that proper officer has not even looked at the reply submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside.

Ex-facie it is apparent that the proper officer has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner while passing the cryptic order. Consequently, this court is of the view that the order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The proper officer shall pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner assails an assessment order in respect of the assessment period 2017-18. Thus, the impugned assessment order suffers from non application of mind resulting in patent errors. For such reason, the impugned assessment order warrants interference. For reasons set out above, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

The impugned order is not proper to the extent that it was not passed by proper officer as per the Circular No.31/05/2018 as the monetary limit of the input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized of central tax is Rs. Ten Lakhs and State Tax Rs. Ten Lakhs, totaling to Rs. Twenty Lakhs for issuance of show cause notices and passing of orders under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act. The writ petition is allowed.

An assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is assailed as regards the findings relating to Discrepancy Nos.1, 2, 10 and 11. The petitioner states that it carries on business in textiles and also as an authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor Vehicles. Pursuant to an audit, show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied thereto on 25.09.2023. The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 came to be issued thereafter.

Challenge has been raised to the order passed by respondent under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017. Since rules of natural justice are mandatory to the extent they bind the respondent authority to deal with the objection of the petitioner and if required grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse order is passed, this court find no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. Accordingly, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner assails an order dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential recovery notice dated 20.12.2023.

An assessment order is assailed primarily on that ground such order is unreasoned. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST laws. The assessing officer merely referred to the reply to the show cause notice and recorded that the reply is not acceptable. Therefore, the impugned order, which is completely unreasoned, calls for interference. Writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned assessment order. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

This court is inclined to accept the submission of the Petitioner that it received the Order dated 31st March 2022 only on 20th September 2022, after it had addressed the said letter dated 9th September 2022 to the Respondents. Since, the Petitioner had filed the Appeal within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said Order on 20th September 2022, by virtue of the provisions of Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is within limitation. This court is of the view that the impugned Order will have to be set aside.