GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Taxmann.com | Newsletter – Reporting the Facts with Taxmann's Analysis. Today's Edition Brings to You Comprehensive Coverage of GST Case Laws | Statutory Updates | Analysis.
Order rejecting the application to condone the delay to be set aside as it was passed without providing any reasons: HC
Paxter Lifescience v. Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 250 (Gujarat)
The assessee purchased goods for export under a Letter of Undertaking (LUT), which allowed export without the payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax. Due to the unavailability of transportation services, the assessee could not export goods within the stipulated period of 90 days. The assessee filed an application to condone the delay in export based on Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. However, the application for extension was rejected by revenue without providing any substantial reasons, merely stating that the extension of the period beyond 90 days was disallowed under the GST Act and Rules. It filed writ petition before the High Court.
The Gujarat High Court noted that it was a well-settled legal position that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by clear, written reasons. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court or quasi-judicial or administrative authority is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity into an order, and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. Thus, the order rejecting the application to condone the delay, which was bereft of any reason, was to be quashed and set aside, and the matter was to be remanded back to the revenue.
Order was set aside as it did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee’s detailed reply to the SCN: HC
The petitioner, a registered person, filed a detailed reply to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The reply was not accepted by the proper officer, and the demand was confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition to the Delhi High Court contending that the order did not provide any adequate reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s detailed reply to the show-cause notice (SCN).
The Delhi High Court noted that the order merely reiterated procedural steps (issuance of SCN, invitation for reply) without discussing or analyzing the petitioner’s reply. Such a non-speaking order violates the principles of natural justice as the proper officer did not fulfill its duty to record reasons for its conclusions. Therefore, the said order was to be set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
That's it from us for today!
We're keen on enhancing Your Taxmann.com | Newsletter Experience and would greatly value your input. Your feedback is pivotal in guiding our improvements. Could you spare a few moments to share your thoughts in the comments on how we might better serve your needs?
??????????????.?????? | ????????????????—Where Technology Powers Your Legal Research Needs
Access the ?????????????? ???????????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ????????????-?????????????? ????????????????, and a ?????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? to find exactly what you need, when you need it.
Experience State-of-the-Art Tax & Corporate Law Research! https://taxmann.social/dpSGE