Even if no response is filed to notices u/s 61 and 73 of GST Act, it is incumbent on the GST Authorities to pass an order in compliance of provisions of Section 75(6) – High Court
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that even if no response is filed to the notices under Sections 61 and 73 of the GST Act, it is incumbent on the GST Authorities to pass an order in compliance of provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act setting out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4459 (2025) (03) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the assessee/Petitioner had challenged order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 (the Act).
The petitioner was issued notice under Section 61 of the Act intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny, which was uploaded on the Additional Tab of the portal, the petitioner on account of such uploading was not aware of the said notice and as such, could not file response to the same.
Whereafter, a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued which again was uploaded on the Additional Tab. However, it was indicated that no personal hearing would be provided. Again, on account of uploading at an incorrect Tab on the portal, the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings, which resulted in passing of the impugned order under Section 73(9) of the Act whereby huge demand was created against the petitioner.
Before the Hon’ble High Court, one of the grounds taken by the Petitioner was that the impugned order passed under Section 73(9) of the Act, was contrary to the requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act wherein it is required of the adjudicating officer to set out relevant facts and basis of his decision whereas, the order impugned had been passed without indicating any reason whatsoever and it was contended that on that count alone the order impugned was bad and deserved to be set aside.
The Revenue contended that plea raised regarding uploading of the notices under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act in the wrong Tab had no basis as a reminder was issued to the petitioner qua which, specific indications in the portal had been made and the petitioner had chosen not to respond to the notices and therefore, passing of the order impugned does not call for any interference.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the plea raised pertaining to purported wrong uploading of the notices, apparently lost significance once the reminder had been issued to the petitioner.
However, the Hon’ble High Court observed that a bare look at the impugned order showed that the same only made reference to issuance of two notices, the fact that they had not been responded and a demand had been raised.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the manner of passing of impugned order fell foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that ‘the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision’, but the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis of the decision were totally missing from the order.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that even if no response was filed to the notices under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on the GST Authorities to pass an order in compliance of provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notice while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.
Consequently, the petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to Deputy Commissioner to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Income Tax demands raised subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan invalid – SC
- RBI appoints Indranil Bhattacharyya as Executive Director w.e.f. March 19, 2025.
- Statement recorded u/s 131(1A) instead of section 133A(iii) by survey team invalid
- ITAT not justified refusing additional evidence without a finding on their relevance
- SEBI to utilise DigiLocker as a means of reducing unclaimed assets in stock market.
){kind=link}