2025 (3) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of CGST Act, in form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024 and consequently, to direct the fourth respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's Bank Account with reference to the above impugned order under Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref No.ZD3308242595528 dated 28.08.2024 passed by the first respondent within a time framed fixed by this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner though filed a reply to the show cause notice with the assistance of the erstwhile Consultant, since, the respondent-Department ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....continued, the petitioner's business would come to a stand-still and hence, seeks for appropriate orders. 4. The learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondents 1 to 3 fairly submitted that since already 40% of the disputed tax has been recovered from the petitioner, subject to the verification of the statement made by the petitioner in that regard, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered. 5. I have given due considerations to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the first respondent has issued a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.05.2024 by fixing the date for reply on 22.06.2024 and fixed the personal heari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned order, has initiated recovery proceedings by virtue of which, the petitioner's bank account has been attached and a sum of Rs. 3,25,320/- was also recovered from the petitioner through electronic cash ledger. 6.1 Therefore, it is clear that the fact that the reply filed by the petitioner's ex-Consultant was not accepted by the respondents was came to the notice of the petitioner only on 04.01.2025, i.e. much later to the passing of the impugned order, hence, the petitioner was not in a position to file any detailed/better reply. However, the first respondent without even providing an opportunity of personal hearing, passed the impugned order, which suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, t....