Oral Order

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. On 24.12.2025, this Court has passed the following order:

          "1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.C.B.Gupta on instructions received by him from the respondent has fairly admitted that while passing the impugned order, the reply dated 11.08.2025 filed by the present petitioner was not considered. We had kept the matter today for taking specific instructions as to whether the petitioner has filed the reconciliation report before the authorities or not, since in the impugned order, it is categorically recorded by the authority that no reconciliation statement with respect of the MIS report generated from SAP system has been submitted by the tax payer i.e. the present petitioner to the office of the respondent authority.

          2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.C.B.Gupta is unable to take such instructions, we were inclined to remand the matter only for want of specific instructions and as requested by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.C.B.Gupta the matter is to be adjourned.

          3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Deven Parikh has further submitted that infact the conciliation report is given on 11.08.2025, 13.10.2025 and 14.10.2025.

          4. Issue Notice returnable on 07.01.2026. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.C.B.Gupta waives service of notice on behalf of respondents.

          5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Gupta shall also take instructions with regard to the issue of limitation raised in the petition. To be listed on top of the board. Meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo. "

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Gupta has tendered a hard-copy of an E-mail dated 05.01.2026 intimating him that "reconciliation statement has been submitted by the taxpayer to this office". The same is ordered to be taken on record.

3. The averments made in the impugned order more particularly, at page Nos.87 and 88 (internal page Nos.26 and 27 of the impugned order) about submission of reconciliation statement appear to be true and observations made in the impugned order at paragraph No.19.4 (page No.147 i.e. internal page No.86 of the impugned order), it is specifically recorded that "... ... ... However, no such reconciliation statement in respect of such MIS report generated from SAP system has been submitted by the taxpayer to this office... ... ... ", appears to be incorrect and contrary to the record.

4. Thus, on this short issue, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 to the extent of observations made in paragraph No.19.4 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is ordered to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering submissions advanced by the petitioner and in light of the reconciliation statement, which has been submitted by the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Parikh has further submitted that in the reply dated 05.08.2025 more particularly, in paragraph No.10, the petitioner has also raised the issue of extended period of limitation and has also referred to the provisions of section 74 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 however, the same is also not dealt with by the authority.

6. In response, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Gupta has pointed out the three lines observation made at page 148 (internal page No.87 of the impugned order), which is as under:

          "Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the taxpayer has intentionally reported less turnover in their GSTR returns on which they are required to pay the tax amount along with applicable interest and penalty."

7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid observation made by the adjudicating authority, we find that the contention raised by the petitioner relating to the limitation is also not dealt with and observation is made perfunctorily. Hence, such contention shall also be dealt with by the adjudicating authority, before passing the fresh order.

8. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Parikh has requested that appropriate direction may be issued to the adjudicating authority to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner since he has apprehension that the authority will reiterate the findings, which are already made in the impugned order. Since it is recorded by us hereinabove that despite there being assertion made by the petitioner that they had supplied reconciliation statement, incorrect observation has been was recorded by the adjudicating authority, we find that in the interest of justice, the adjudicating authority shall afford the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before passing the fresh order.

9. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. We further clarify, as fairly pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Parikh, that the matter is remanded for all the issues, except which are accepted by the petitioner.