The Madras High Court in Tokyo Zairyo (India) Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner set aside the order disregarding petitioner's reply as an unauthorised.
The Petitioner had challenged the assessment order which had disregarded the petitioner’s reply. After the completion of the audit, a show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner responded well within time. However, the tax authorities passed an assessment order, prompting the petitioner to challenge it on the grounds of their disregarded reply. The petitioner had highlighted the disregard of the petitioner’s reply, labeling it as unauthorized solely because of the petitioner’s inability to attend the scheduled personal hearing. The department’s argument against it was that the petitioner had failed to produce certain essential documents, leading to the confirmation of the tax demand.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the order specifically mentioned the rejection of the petitioner’s reply as unauthorized due to the absence of the petitioner during the personal hearing which raised question regarding the validity of such categorization and the subsequent disregard of the petitioner’s contentions. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing.
W&B Comments: The Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that the assessment Order passed under Section 73/74 of CGST Act, had failed to comply with Sub-section 9 o of the provision. As the assessment order was passed without any consideration of representation (reply) made by the petitioner, it is not a well sounded order as it does not comply with the law well as the principles of natural justice.