2021 (3) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Petitioner (By Sri Prakash R Badiger, Adv.) Respondents (By Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, AGA) ORDER The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned endorsement passed by the first respondent dated 23.07.2020, filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a transport contractor duly registered under the GST Act and Rules. The petitioner hired ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eyance. The second respondent doubted the bonafide of the consigner. The consigner took all the steps to show his bonafide. However, second respondent during the lockdown period, without giving an opportunity to produce evidence from Selam, hurriedly passed the order and concluded the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act and levied tax and penalty. The consigner aggrieved by the same, filed a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....first respondent, filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent without considering the material placed by the petitioner has issued the impugned endorsement and further the first respondent has not considered the appeal on merits and rejected on unwarranted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned endorsement. Thus, the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent is not a speaking order. Though the petitioner placed material before the first respondent, without considering the same, merely on the ground that the writ petition filed by the consigner, which is pending, rejected the appeal. The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal w....