SCN asking petitioner
to pay dues instead of
giving show cause is a
Sansar Auto and Retail
(P.) Ltd. v. State Tax
Officer  155
GST DRC-01 was issued to petitioner and it was challenged it was not a SCN but an order as petitioner was asked to pay the dues.
The Court observed that a reading of impugned Notice indicated that respondent had asked the petitioner to pay the amount directly
instead of calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to how the amounts specified therein should not be demanded. It was held to
be a minor mistake as it gave an impression that it was an order. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent to
issue a corrigendum to the Impugned Notice in Form GST DRC-01.
Order passed without
serving notice as per
Section 169(1)(b) and
business verticals set
Tvl. Diamond Shipping
Agencies (P.) Ltd. v.
(ST)  155
Petitioner was having three business verticals of the same PAN, but respondents passed order without considering GSTR-9 and
GSTR-9C for the said three business verticals. Therefore, it was claimed that if an opportunity was granted, petitioner would explain
the same to the authorities. Moreover, without serving physical notice/order, impugned order was passed violating Section 169(1)(b).
The Court observed that the impugned order was passed without serving notice as per section 169(1)(b) and without taking into
account that petitioner was having three business verticals. Therefore, the Court quashed impugned order and directed the
respondents to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Order held invalid as it
did not mention
provision under which
it was passed and had
no discussion on merit
Alutec Facades India (P.)
Ltd. v. Assistant
 155 taxmann.com
161 (Madras) (04-09-23)
Petitioner was sought to be denied Transitional Credit from VAT Returns by referring “second proviso to the TNGST Act 2017”.
The Court held that reading of the impugned order indicated that there was no clear discussion as to which provision was referred to
in the paragraph immediately following the table in the impugned order. There was also no discussion in the impugned order while
denying the amount of Input Tax Credit that was allegedly wrongly transmitted by the petitioner in Trans-1. Thus, impugned order was
set aside and the case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits.
Order passed basis
on the reports never
provided to assessee
held to be invalid and
all contentions by the
petitioner to be
(P.) Ltd. v. Competition
Commission of India
 155 taxmann.com
162 (Delhi) (12-09-23)
The Court observed that the reports submitted by the DGAP, pursuant to which the impugned order was passed, were not provided
to the petitioner. It was also not disputed that the said reports were are not favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner had no
opportunity to address the issues raised in the said reports. The Authority had examined the reports submitted by the DGAP (copies
of which were not provided to the petitioner) and issued further directions for verification and investigation. The Authority had not
accepted petitioner's contention to close the proceedings. Thus, it was held that the impugned order was vitiated as it was passed
without following the principles of natural justice and the impugned order was set aside. It was further directed by the Court to the
Authority that it shall consider the contentions advanced by the parties and pass a speaking order because one of the petitioner's
grievances was that all contentions advanced by the petitioner were not considered and decided by the Authority.
Order passed basis
upon GSTR-3B and
GSTR-2A held to be
valid as assessee did
not avail opportunity
to discharge burden
casted U/Sec 155
Ansil Ibrahim v. Assistant
Commissioner  155
Petitioner was issued SCN under section 73(1). Petitioner did not reply to the said SCN, nor did petitioner appear for a personal
hearing. Assessing Authority verified ITC as per GSTR 2A and return as per GSTR 3B for 2017-18.
The Court observed that as the petitioner did not appear in pursuance of the SCN nor did he provide any document or evidence to
discharge his burden under section 155 of the GST Act, the Assessing Authority had no other material before them except for Form
GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. Assessing Authority, therefore, denied the claim of ITC. If there was a difference between GSTR 2A and
GSTR 3B, then it was for assessee/dealer to prove his claim of ITC by leading cogent and credible evidence for his claim. The Court
thus held that when petitioner himself had given up his right to prove his claim, the Court cannot help such by entertaining writ petition
order binding upon the
lower authority and
appeal shall be filed if
the same is not
correct in view of the
India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant
Range-V  155
Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order on remand by higher authority by recording that order of the Appellate Authority
was not in accordance with law and he could not comply the order of the Appellate Authority and rejected petitioner's claim of refund.
The Court observed that such conduct of Adjudicating Authority was highly deprecable and if such stand was taken by an adjudicating
authority on his senior authority's order by contending that his officer's order was not correct and he would not obey and comply such
order, there would be administrative anarchy in Government offices and such conduct was also beyond norms of the quashi-judicial
authority's' function. If Adjudicating Authority was of the view that order of the Appellate Authority was not in accordance with law he
could have gone to further appeal. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority
SCN mentioning “NA”
against time, place
and venue of hearing
Brijesh Kumar Singh v.
State of U.P.  155
SCN did give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by mentioning "NA" against column description "Date of personal hearing".
Similar endorsements were made against the columns for "Time of personal hearing" and "Venue where personal hearing will be
held". Thus, it was contended that the petitioner was completely denied opportunity of oral hearing before the Assessing Authority.
The Court referring to Section 75(4) held that once it is laid down that an assessee is not required to request for "opportunity of
personal hearing", it remained mandatory to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order, even if petitioner may have
signified 'No' in the column meant to mark the assessee's choice to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence.
Cases Referred- Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commerical Tax & 2 Ors., (2022) 48 VLJ 325, M/S Hitech Sweet
Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 UPTC (Vol. 112) 1760.