Court sets aside orders under GST Act due to improper service, emphasizes need for proper service. Failure of natural justice found.

The Court set aside orders under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act due to improper service of notices, leading to ex-parte proceedings. It emphasized the need for proper service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act. Additionally, the Court found a failure of natural justice in the Appellate Authority proceedings, granting the petitioner the opportunity to file a fresh reply. The judgment stressed the importance of adhering to legal procedures, ensuring parties have a fair chance to present their case, and upholding principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Ex-parte proceedings due to non-service of notices under Section 129 of the GST Act.
2. Failure of natural justice in Appellate Authority proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Ex-parte proceedings due to non-service of notices under Section 129 of the GST Act:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash orders passed by the respondent authorities under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the notices required under Section 129 of the GST Act were not served upon them, resulting in ex-parte proceedings. The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that while some orders were served on the driver of the truck, one order was fixed on the truck itself, which did not comply with the prescribed methods of service under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court held that a specific manner of service is provided under Section 169, and deviation from this method renders the service invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders due to lack of proper service and directed the respondents to conclude proceedings lawfully after serving notices properly.

Issue 2 - Failure of natural justice in Appellate Authority proceedings:
Regarding the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity to submit a reply, and their grounds for appeal were dismissed as an afterthought. The Court observed that natural justice demands that a party must be heard before a decision is made against them. Since the petitioner was not granted a chance to present their case, there was a clear failure of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 5.8.2020 and 23.1.2020, granting the petitioner the opportunity to file a fresh reply within three weeks. The respondents were directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing objections, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition, emphasizing the importance of following due process and ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. The judgment highlighted the significance of proper service of notices and the necessity of upholding principles of natural justice in legal proceedings to safeguard the rights of the parties involved.

---