2025 (9) TMI 1386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tate Tax, Gorakhpur as well as impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3/Deputy Commissioner, Section-2, Gorakhpur, U.P. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings under section 73 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner and notice was issued to the petitioner in which the date of personal hearing was mentioned as 13.06.2024 but against the time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing was mentioned as 'N.A.' Another notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2024 where the date for submission of reply was mentioned as 04.08.2024 and date for personal hearing was fixed as 3.08.2024 which was the date prior to the last date of submission of reply. He further submits that dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... opportunities was given to the petitioner to submit his reply but the petitioner in his wisdom has choose not to submit his reply, therefore, the impugned orders are correct. He further submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal beyond the period prescribed under the law, therefore, there is no power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation. However, he do not dispute the legal proposition enumerated in the judgment passed by this Court in M/s Aditya Singh through Proprietor Sh. Aditya Singh (Supra). 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 9. The record shows that second reminder notice was given to the petitioner fixing the date for submission of the reply o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 06.11.2023. 11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct." 5. In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), we see no reason why this Court should take a diffe....