There is no provision in the GST Act for reserving the judgement and delivering the judgement later on – High Court
In a recent judgment, Allahabad High Court quashed GST appellate order as there is no provision in the GST Act for reserving the judgement and delivering the judgement later on.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4603 (2025) (06) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case, the assessee had filed a writ petition challenging inter alia against the impugned appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), GST.
The petitioner submitted that it was a Private Limited Company and carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales. It was further submitted that during a month, the petitioner purchased different types of chemicals (raw material) for manufacture from the registered dealers, who issued tax invoices.
Subsequently, show cause notice was issued under section 74(1) of the GST Act on the ground that Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been availed by fraud or mis-statement, to which the petitioner submitted detailed reply along with the copies of tax invoice, bank statement, Form GSTR 2-A, etc.
It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, GST, vide order demanded the tax and penalty, without providing a copy of the alleged survey report or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) GST, which had been dismissed vide impugned order.
The Petitioner contended that in the said appeal, a date was fixed for hearing and on the same date the judgement was reserved and one week thereafter, the judgment was delivered to which the petitioner was not put to notice.
The Petitioner argued that there is no provision in the GST Act for reserving the judgement and delivering the judgement later on. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the High Court.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that that the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had dealt with the similar issue where, the respondent officer had placed reliance on the Appeal Manual issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, that after hearing the appeal, order can be passed on the later date. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner, State Tax U.P., Lucknow had stated that first appeal manual was not applicable in relation to the filing of the appeals under the GST Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no mention of any provision or notification empowering the authority not passing the judgement on the date fixed, but on a later date, to which neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was heard on the next date.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matters require reconsideration.
Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed. The writ petition was allowed. The matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue de novo after granting due opportunity of hearing.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…