Revenue cannot pass an order against applicant without providing any reason or explanation thereby breaching the principles of natural justice- High Court of Gujarat
In the case of Anish Infracon India (P.) Ltd. vs Union of India  127 taxmann.com 61 (Gujarat), the petition was filed by Anish Infracon India (P.) Ltd. (petitioner) before the high court of Gujarat challenging the authority in relation to the summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 18.02.2021 demanding sum of Rs.81,72,530/- on the ground that the summary order is suffering from the vice of non-consideration of submissions made by the petitioner and is also a case of serious breach of principles of natural justice.
The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 06.01.2021, which was replied to in detail on 21.01.2021. The show cause notice was issued in relation to wrong availment of Input Tax Credit for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018.
The petitioner stated that the show cause notice dated 06.01.2021 was a summary notice in FORM GST DRC-07 which culminated in the physical summary order of FORM GST DRC-07 dated 18.02.2021 demanding sum of Rs.81,72,530/- with a specific direction to make the payment in 30 days.
Further on 26.03.2021 detailed submissions were made and request was made not to initiate the recovery proceedings.
Later on, the petitioner approached to the Court on the ground that the detailed order was not made available and only the physical summary order dated 18.02.2021 was made available. The non-supply of the order without any explanation or reasons for raising huge demand is the ground with respect to which the petition was filed.
On hearing the learned Advocated for the petitioner, it was decided that a detailed order should be provided to the petitioner within seven days of the receipt of copy of this order and the order shall be shared electronically within 24 hours on e-mail id provided by the Petitioner.
Once the detailed order has been issued, the petitioner will have the option to submit a detailed response and raise issues before the appellate authority within the prescribed time of three months from the date of receipt of the detailed order.
Conclusion: In the case of “Anish Infracon India (P.) Ltd. vs Union of India”, the petition stands disposed of to the extent that the department has been directed to provide a detailed order and the petitioner has been provided appropriate opportunity of being heard as the petitioner can appeal against the order within the prescribed time limit to the appellate authority.