1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court remands detention order appeal due to missing E-way bills, grants fair hearing opportunity.</h1> The High Court set aside the dismissal of an appeal against a detention order due to missing E-way bills, as the petitioner's counsel was absent due to ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills - Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. There is no reasons not to believe the version of the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the counsel for the appellant could not appear on account of his suffering from high fever and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to dismissal of appeal without hearing the counsel for the appellant.Analysis:The petitioner, a trader/seller of Bidi, challenged the dismissal of the appeal filed against a detention order due to missing E-way bills. The petitioner contended that the goods were sold to registered dealers with invoices under 50,000/-, hence E-way bills were not required. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 16.11.2019 without hearing the petitioner's counsel, who was absent due to illness. A demand notice was issued on 24.7.2020 post the dismissal. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the absence of counsel due to illness and set aside the order dated 16.11.2019. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the counsel.Conclusion:In the interest of justice, the High Court directed the counsel for the appellant to appear before the Tribunal on 10th December 2020. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months from the said date. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant and a prompt resolution of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
