Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.

Facts: The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing.