Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ex parte order passed under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2018-March 2019 is sustainable where the petitioner had earlier applied for cancellation of registration and the registration was cancelled with retrospective effect and no personal service of the show cause notice was shown to have been effected.
Analysis: The Court examined the record showing that the petitioner had applied for cancellation of registration prior to the impugned action and that the registration had been cancelled with retrospective effect, which indicated that the petitioner had ceased business and had no occasion to check the Department's portal. The Court relied on precedents in which similar facts resulted in finding violation of principles of natural justice where notices were uploaded on the portal and ex parte orders were passed without personal service or opportunity to be heard. In those circumstances the Court concluded that the impugned ex parte order could not stand and that the assessing authority must provide opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and thereafter pass a fresh order.
Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit its response to the show cause notice within fifteen days and to be heard.