AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 74 of C.G.S.T-U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2017'). The only issue for consideration has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on receipt of the show cause notice dated 17.12.2021 issued by respondent no.2, a reply dated 23.12.2021 was submitted by the petitioner and in the documents uploaded in Form GST DRC 06, the petitioner opted for personal hearing by tick marking the relevant column. The copy of said reply in the requisite form has been appended at page '40' of the paper book. However, the date, time and venue of the personal hearing was not intimated to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. On the said issue by the order dated 6.12.2022, the instru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fording of opportunity of hearing by the assessee by intimating him the date, time and venue for personal hearing, the assessment order was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was, thus, held therein that the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act cannot said to be a bar to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The exception carved out to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in the event of the alternative remedy, in case of gross violation of principles of natural justice was considered therein. In the instant case, the notice dated 17.12.2021 indicates that it was issued with reference to the previous notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f hearing had been given. Even otherwise, while giving reply dated 23.12.2021 in Form GST DRC-06 the petitioner had opted for personal hearing, which admittedly had not been provided to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. We, thus, do not find any substance in the stand of the revenue that since the petitioner did not submit any reply to the first notice dated 27.8.2022, no further time should have been granted to him, moreover, when he submitted a reply dated 23.12.2021 opting for personal hearing. The Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers discretionary power on the High Court, however, in case of availability of alternative remedy, as self-restraint, not as a rule of law, the High Court could not entertain t....