The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court has held that although time for reply under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act is not prescribed, a proper officer must consider the assessee’s response before passing order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar has observed that if the period prescribed for giving reply to the show cause notice or filing reply/representation has expired, it is open to the proper officer to presume that assessee has nothing to say in the matter and pass an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.
However, the bench noted that in a case where before the proper authority could pass a final order under Section 73(9), reply/representation submitted by the assessee to show cause notice is received, it becomes incumbent upon the proper officer to consider the reply/representation and then pass a speaking order in terms of Section 73(9) of the CGST Act after dealing with such response/representation. It is so because the time to file response to the show cause notice is not statutorily fixed and is left to the discretion of the proper officer.
The petitioner/assessee, Zakir Hussain who is a Contractor by profession and registered with the GST department is aggrieved of an order issued by State Taxes Officer, Circle Kishtwar (STO), by which a demand of tax of Rs. 15,44,922 for the financial year 2020-2021 has been raised against the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the notice of demand primarily, on the ground that it has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice, in that, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered.
The issue raised was whether non-consideration of such reply/representation filed by the assessee in response to the show cause notice would vitiate the order passed under Section 73(9) of the SGST Act, 2017 being in violation of principles of natural justice.
The court noted that the time period for submitting reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) has not been statutorily prescribed. However, nothing stops or prevents the proper officer to solicit reply to the show cause notice within a reasonable period fixed by it.
The court quashed the order passed by STO Circle Kishtwar under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017. The STO Circle Kishtwar is left free to pass fresh orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice on 20.01.2025. The STO concerned shall do well to provide an opportunity of the oral hearing from the petitioner before passing the order. The tax, if any, recovered in terms of order quashed shall remain subject to pass a fresh order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Case Details
Case Title: Zakir Hussain Versus UOI
Case No.: WP (C) No. 2812/2025
Date: 13/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Bhavesh Bhushan, Advocate
Read More: Mumbai Customs Arrest Couple at CSMIA for Carrying Marijuana Worth Over Rs 5 Crore
