Page 72 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

286 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
thority not dealing with the specific objections and grounds that the Petitioner
has raised in their memo of Appeal - Absence of reasons in the order passed
by Appellate Authority clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence
legally unsustainable - Matter remitted back to the Appellate Authority for
passing of a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the grounds raised in
the Appeal challenging the order passed by the Assessing Authority. [paras 6,
7, 8]
Matter remanded
CASE CITED
East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao — (2010) 7 SCC 678 — Relied on .................................. [Para 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri V.R. Tiwari, Addl. Advocate General, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 6-9-
2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 3 while deciding the Appeal un-
der Section 107(1) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Appeal which
the Petitioner had preferred was for challenging the Order passed by Respond-
ent No. 4 on 20-8-2018 whereby the tax liability of Rs. 1,94,79,059/- has been im-
posed upon the Petitioner with interest thereon to the tune of Rs. 31,60,213/- and
also penalty of an amount of Rs. 19,47,906/- on the said amount.
3. The ground of challenge by the Petitioner-Company in the present
Writ Petition is that they had raised various grounds in their Appeal and the Re-
spondent No. 3-Appellate Authority has also quoted most of these grounds in
paragraph 2 of the impugned Order, however, none of these grounds have been
discussed and dealt with while passing the final order in the Appeal. The major
ground on which the Petitioner is harping upon is that the Appellate Authority
has not considered the fact that the Petitioner had bona fidely submitted their re-
turn within time, however, because of technical error in the course of submitting
of the return online, the return submitted by the Petitioner was reflected to be
zero which was immediately informed to the authorities in the department.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that they have es-
tablished their bona fide by depositing the balance of amount immediately while
submitting the return of the next month, which too was duly intimated to the
authorities in the department, and as such the Petitioner never had any mala fide
intention or had ever tried to evade the payment of tax. Further contention of the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that even while assessing the interest part
also, the department should have made the assessment after taking into account
the tax credit that the Petitioner was entitled for and if that amount would had
been taken into consideration the liability on the interest part would had been
substantially reduced so also the penalty amount. These aspects have not been
dealt with or discussed by the Appellate Authority though in the impugned Or-
der he has referred to these grounds which the Petitioner has raised in their Ap-
peal.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, opposing
the present Writ Petition, refers to paragraphs 7 to 10 of the impugned Order and
submits that the Order passed by the Appellate Authority is self-explanatory so
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  72