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 summary demand order and consequent proceedings under the GST law could be sustained when the show-cause notice was stated to have been sent to an old email address and the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to submit its reply, and whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of a statutory remedy.
Analysis: The record showed that the notices were sent to an email address which had already been changed, while the petitioner produced material indicating the registered email address and also explained the alleged mismatch in the tax records. The respondents did not effectively answer this explanation in the counter affidavit. On those materials, the deficiency in service of notice and the resultant denial of a real opportunity to respond amounted to a breach of natural justice. The objection as to maintainability was rejected because writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not curtailed where the impugned action is assailed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.
Conclusion: The summary order was not sustainable, the matter was sent back to the assessing authority for a fresh decision after granting an opportunity to file reply, and the writ petition succeeded to that extent.