Order passed rejecting the adjournment application is not valid

Facts: The Petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing the impugned order passed under Section 74 of the U.P.GST Act and Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.03.2022 issued under rule 142(5) of the Rules by the Respondents for the tax period April 2018-March 2019 (F.Y. 2018- 19) being in violation of provision of the Act as well as in gross violation of the principle of natural justice.  It was also prayed to quash the impugned order passed u/s 161 of the GST Act and GST DRC-08 dated 11.04.2022 issued/passed by the Respondents for the Tax period: April 2018 March 2019 (FY 2018-19).

Held: –

• The Hon’ble Court after considering the submissions made and the facts of the case, found that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 has been passed under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, rejecting the adjournment application of the petitioner, and the same is followed by rectification order dated 11.04.2022 under Section 161 of the UPGST Act, 2017.
• It appears from the record, that the first notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 granting 15 days’ time to file a reply with respect to unverified transaction of Rs.3,19,22,729/-. However, on 30.03.2022, the petitioner submitted an online adjournment application and sought 15 days’ time.
• It was found that there is no dispute that the said application was the first adjournment application and the cause shown for taking adjournment was not disbelieved by the respondents, still the liability of tax was assessed in the impugned orders and the adjournment application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the impugned orders are passed have been passed by the respondents in gross breach of natural justice.

The Hon’ble High Court with the above findings, quashed the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 74 and the rectification order dated 11.04.2022 passed under Section 161 of the UPGST Act and remitted the matter back to the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing reasonable opportunity to submit the reply as well as reasonable opportunity of hearing.

To read the complete judgment 2022 Taxo.online 683