Order date – 21 November 2022

Key Pointers –

• The Appellant, Vinayaka Steels, issued pre-assesment notice in DRC-01 on 25.05.2022 and the order proceeds on the basis of the petitioner's reply filed on 08.02.2022 in response to a verification of the petitioner's return in Form ASMT – 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not responded to notice dated 25.05.2022.
• The impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated 08.02.2022 by way of a cryptic one liner stating 'dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far'.
• The Hon’ble High Court finds that, it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to the passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated 08.02.2022 by way of a cryptic one liner stating 'dealer reply was verified and not accepted so far'.
• The confirmation of proposals in the manner as aforesaid leaves in no doubt that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 
• This Writ Petition was allowed.