Arkitechno Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court, in Arkitechno Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, set aside a GST adjudication order dated March 6, 2024, on the grounds that the assessee’s reply was not considered. The petitioner had received a notice under Form GST DRC-01 on October 18, 2023, and submitted a response, along with personal representation during the hearing. However, the adjudication order lacked any reasoning for rejecting the assessee’s submissions, effectively making it an order passed without due consideration. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse hindered its ability to file returns and sought restoration of the case for proper adjudication.
The court observed that the absence of a response to the petitioner’s contentions led to an inference in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, it quashed the adjudication order and granted the petitioner another opportunity to present its case. The petitioner was directed to communicate the order to the relevant GST authority by January 6, 2025, to secure a fresh hearing. Failure to do so would result in the restoration of the quashed order. Additionally, any recovery actions based on the original order were put on hold until the matter was reconsidered. The decision highlights the necessity of reasoned orders in tax adjudication to ensure fairness and procedural compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and with reference to order dated 12th December, 2024 presses for hearing and order.
2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, impugned order was duly made and there should not be interference. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue.
3. Reproduced below is paragraph-1 from said order dated 12th December, 2024.
“1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client received notice dated 18th October, 2023 in form GST DRC-01. Reply was submitted and authorized representative of his client appeared for personal hearing, as would appear from impugned adjudication order dated 6th March, 2024. Referring to discussions and findings given in the order he submits, there is no illumination as to why contentions made in the reply stood rejected. It amounts an order made without hearing his client. He submits, all his client wants is restoration, for purpose of making out effective case for the authority to consider. Consequent actions have been taken, as a result of which his client is unable to file return.”
We do not have answer to the query made. In the circumstances, we presume in favour of petitioner.
4. Impugned adjudication order dated 6th March, 2024 is set aside and quashed to give petitioner one more opportunity to present its case before the authority. Certified copy of this order is to be communicated by petitioner to opposite party no.2/proper officer by 6th January, 2025 for obtaining date of hearing. In event of omission to communicate as directed, impugned order will stand restored. Needless to mention, on petitioner availing the opportunity, consequent recovery notice will not be given effect to.
5. The writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
