Since fair opportunity of hearing is not given to petitioner and the order passed is ex-parte in nature, this court is of the opinion that the assessment order is bad in law.
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Demand order —–- The petitioner prayed for declaring Section 16(4) of the Act as ultra virus, in as much as it seeks to impose a time limit for the availment of ITC being violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India; for declaring the amendment carried under Rule 61(5) inserted vide Clause 4(a) of Notification No. 49/2019 dated 9th October, 2019 as ultra vires, under which GSTR-3B has been declared to be a valid return under Section 39 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, for quashing the order dated Order dated 15.02.2020 and DRC-07 dated: 07.03.2020, under which the petitioner has been intimated for disallowance of ITC. The counsel for the Revenue submitted that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh. The court observed that the order is bad in law because no sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case and order passed ex-parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed under Section 73(9), with further direction(s) that the petitioner shall deposit ten per cent of the total amount within four weeks; the petitioner shall appear before the authority on 29th of September, 2021, if possible through digital mode. The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
Since fair opportunity of hearing is not given to petitioner and the order passed is ex-parte in nature, this court is of the opinion that the assessment order is bad in law.
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Demand order —–- The petitioner prayed for declaring Section 16(4) of the Act as ultra virus, in as much as it seeks to impose a time limit for the availment of ITC being violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India; for declaring the amendment carried under Rule 61(5) inserted vide Clause 4(a) of Notification No. 49/2019 dated 9th October, 2019 as ultra vires, under which GSTR-3B has been declared to be a valid return under Section 39 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, for quashing the order dated Order dated 15.02.2020 and DRC-07 dated: 07.03.2020, under which the petitioner has been intimated for disallowance of ITC. The counsel for the Revenue submitted that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh. The court observed that the order is bad in law because no sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case and order passed ex-parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed under Section 73(9), with further direction(s) that the petitioner shall deposit ten per cent of the total amount within four weeks; the petitioner shall appear before the authority on 29th of September, 2021, if possible through digital mode. The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.