Orissa HC Sets aside Proceedings initiated u/s 73 of CGST Act without providing Opportunity of Hearing [Read Order]
Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 73. The court decided as it could not demonstrate that in the impugned order made under section 73, said reply of assessee was considered
![Orissa HC Sets aside Proceedings initiated u/s 73 of CGST Act without providing Opportunity of Hearing [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Orissa-High-Court-CGST-Act-Orissa-HC-Sets-aside-Proceedings-taxscan.jpg "Orissa HC Sets aside Proceedings initiated u/s 73 of CGST Act without providing Opportunity of Hearing [Read Order]")
In a recent case, the Orissa High Court set aside the proceedings initiated under section 73 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST) Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity to hearing. Read More: 6% Excise Duty Applicable on Railway Diesel Locomotive Parts: CESTAT Harekrushna Sahoo, the petitioner challenged the impugned order made under section 73 in Odisha Goods...
In a recent case, the Orissa High Court set aside the proceedings initiated under section 73 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST) Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity to hearing.
Read More: 6% Excise Duty Applicable on Railway Diesel Locomotive Parts: CESTAT
Harekrushna Sahoo, the petitioner challenged the impugned order made under section 73 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Proceeding under section 73 would be initiated because it had not, inter alia, furnished reply to communication by ASMT-10 dated 13th January, 2022 detail Reference no.ZD210122006014K. She demonstrates that it is disclosure of reply dated 25th April, 2022 furnished by her client with reference to the referred communication. As such, revenue could not have proceeded under section 73 without considering her client’s reply.
Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here
Read More:Penalty for Under-Reporting: ITAT Remands Matter Due to Pending Quantum Appeal Before CIT(A)
Mr. Mishra, advocate, Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of revenue and submitted that the proceeding in which petitioner was asked to furnish reply was under section 61. Even though proceeding under section 73 was thereafter initiated overlooking petitioner’s reply, in the subsequent proceeding adequate opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner. In the circumstances, no prejudice was suffered by petitioner. The writ petition be dismissed.
Cash Transactions Can Lead to Fines! Are you at risk? - Click Here
Section 61, by sub-section (2) requires consideration of explanation furnished. Sub-section (3) says, in case no satisfactory explanation is furnished, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under, inter alia, section 73. On query made Mr. Mishra could not demonstrate that in impugned order made under section 73, said reply dated 25th April, 2022 was considered.
A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo observed that the initiation of the proceeding under section 73 was clearly without jurisdiction and the mpugned order was set aside and quashed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
