MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
High Court, Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice & Ravinder Dudeja, Justice
MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
W.P.(C) 3355/2024 & CM APPLs. 13818-20/2024 dated 05.03.2024
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 73 & 75
Notification/Circular : Notification No. 9 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023
Decision : Matter remanded back
Demand raised- The petitioner assails order dated 24.12.2023 whereby demand has been confirmed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner also submits that his reply was not considered before passing of order. – The impugned only records that “And whereas, the taxpayer has filed their objections/reply online on portal through DRC-06 which has been examined thoroughly and was found to be devoid of merits. Therefore, following principle of natural justice before passing any adverse order, further personal hearing opportunity was given to the taxpayer. And whereas, taxpayer/authorized representative appeared for personal hearing apart from reply filed no other additional information/documents were submitted by the taxpayer, hence undersigned is left with no other option but to issue DRC-07 on the basis of reply and documents available on the portal. And whereas, on examination of the reply/documents furnished by the taxpayer, it has been observed that since the reply is devoid of merits without any justification or proper reconciliation, the demand raised in SCN/DRC-01 is hereby upheld along-with penalty.” – GST Officer was of the view that reply was vague or further details were required, the same could have been sought from the petitioner, however, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details. – Held- The Court after analyzing the facts of this case opined that petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity to defend the show cause notice by way of a hearing . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Harsh Makhija, Advocate.
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member