The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(GST) 1500 (Karn-HC) : (2022) 108 ITPJ (G) 0745
CENTRAL GOODS SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Section 107 Section 121
Where except for stating that no appeal would lie against the audit observation/report, no other reasons were assigned by appellate authority, the said endorsement was an unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary cryptic and laconic endorsement without application of mind and was liable to be set aside.
|
Appeal to appellate authority - Rejection of appeal without granting opportunity of fair hearing - Validity -
Assessee sought to quash report/observation passed under section 65(b) by the Authority for the assessment period 2017-18 and also sought direction to appellate authority to grant an opportunity to the assessee and decide the case on merits. It was contended by assessee that the said endorsement was an unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary, cryptic and laconic endorsement without application of mind. In as much as except for stating that no appeal would lie against the audit observation/report, no other reasons were assigned to dismiss the appeal. Held:> Revenue had not considered or appreciated the scope and ambit of section 107 read with section 121 of the said Act of 2017 and consequently, the impugned endorsement being unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary, cryptic and laconic, deserved to be quashed.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In favour of assessee.
A.Y. :
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Epragathi Recycling v. State of Karnataka
Writ Petition No. 17034/2022 (T-RES)
9 September, 2022
Petitioner by : Atul. K. Alur, Advocate)
Respondents by : Hemakumar, Aga.)
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the appeal order passed by the respondent NO.3 for the assessment period 2017-18 bearing No.GST.AP:48/2021-22, in Form No.GST APL-04, bearing GSTIN No.29BUFPB6342G1ZQ, dated 14-7-2022 at Annexure-D, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|