TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appellate authority. 3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that that order of assessing officer fastening the petitioner concerned with a liability of tax upon the sale for the relevant financial year in question alongwith interest and penalty in purported exercise of power under Section 74 of the GST Act, is absolutely ex parte one as neither alleged show cause notice was ever brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor service of the same was physically ever effected upon petitioner. Petitioner got knowledge of the proceedings conducted its back when the order came to be uploaded on the dash board with the tab "view additional notices and orders". Thus, it is argued that petitioner having failed to notice,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon tab 'view notices and orders' at the GST Portal and then rendering the party defenseless in the matter of liability of tax under the GST Act is no more res integra. It is submitted that division bench of this Court in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024) has dealt with this aspect of the matter and it has been held that no material existed to reject the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that order impugned imposing liability of tax was not reflecting under tab 'view notices and orders' and so there remained a valid dispute as to non consideration/consideration of the various documents of returns available which could have been show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng response. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sai Dham Residency v. State of U.P. and another in Writ Tax No.- 1175 of 2024 decided on 28th August, 2024. Vide paragraph 3 and 4 of the M/s Sai Dham Residency the Court has held thus: "3. In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing. 4. Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However by virtue of the expres....