The GST demand of Rs. 8.23 crore against Max Healthcare is been quashed by the Delhi High Court.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that a proper officer is required to regard the reply on merits and then develop a view as to whether the response was devoid of merits.
The proper officer ruled that the reply was devoid of merit, which indicates that the proper officer has not used his mind to the reply submitted via the applicant.
The taxpayer has contested the order through which the Show Cause Notice suggested a demand against the applicant has been disposed of, and a demand of Rs. 8,22,82,330.00, including penalty, has been raised against the applicant. Under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 201 the order has been passed.
The petitioner furnished that a reply was filed with the SCN; though, the order did not regard the reply submitted through the applicant and was a cryptic order.
The Show Cause Notice indicates that the Department has furnished the separate headings under declaration of output tax, excess claim ITC, declaration of ineligible ITC, and ITC claims from cancelled dealers, return defaulters, and tax non-payers. To the Show Cause Notice, a reply was given via the applicant, providing full disclosures under each of the heads.
The bench rendered the proper officer to intimate to the applicant information and documents, as might be needed to be provided via the petitioner. Under the intimation being given, the petitioner would provide the requisite explanation and documents.
Read Also: Madras HC: Before Placing A GST Order, It Is Mandatory to Have a Personal Hearing Opportunity
Subsequently, the Proper Officer will re-adjudicate the SCN after furnishing a chance for a personal hearing and shall pass a fresh speaking order under the law within the period specified under Section 75(3).
| Case Title | Healthcare Institute Limited |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) 3355/2024 & CM APPLs. 13818-20/2024 |
| Date | 05.03.2024 |
| For the Petitioner: | Advocates Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal and Jitesh Sah |
| Counsel For Respondent | Advocate K. K. Maiti |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
