Introduction:

In a recent case concerning a works contractor and registered GST dealer, the High Court intervened due to procedural discrepancies. The petitioner, after receiving an intimation followed by a show cause notice from the department, requested a two-month extension to respond, citing ongoing verifications by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). However, the Assessing Officer proceeded without considering this request, leading to the petitioner’s contention that their response was overlooked. Here’s a paraphrased rendition of the court’s ruling:

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in works contracting and registered under GST, underwent inspection by the department. Subsequently, they received an intimation and a show cause notice (SCN). Responding to the intimation, the petitioner sought a two-month extension to reply, citing ongoing verifications by the DGGI. However, their request was disregarded, and the department issued the impugned order without allowing the requested time.

Held:

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s response, along with the request for an extension, was duly submitted, indicating ongoing proceedings with the Central GST Authorities. Despite this, the Assessing Officer proceeded without considering the request, resulting in the issuance of the impugned order. Consequently, the Court deemed the order to be flawed and directed the Assessing Officer to afford the assessee an opportunity for a response, including a personal hearing, before issuing a fresh order.