2026 (1) TMI 1395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that it is a registered dealer and is having GSTIN No. 09BKBPP6273NIZH. The writ petitioner sold goods (Groundnut) to one M/s Durga Trading Company amounting Rs. 3,48,000/-. There was a charge of Rs. 17,400/- IGST at the rate of 5%, totaling to Rs. 3,65,400/-. The consignment was loaded on vehicle bearing no. UP 32 LN 2687 and it was to proceed to West Bengal from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The case of the writ petitioner is that goods along with the vehicle were intercepted by the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner Sector-1 (Mobile Squard) Bhognipur Ramabai Nagar, State Tax, Kanpur Nagar and in process,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he writ petition on 04.10.2025 while passing the following orders: "1. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the order of appellate authority, relevant extract whereof at page Nos.30 and 31, would reveal that dates have been fixed for 02.01.2025, 01.05.2025, 10.07.2025, 02.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 22.08.2025 and 08.09.2025, but the writ petitioner did not appear despite service of notice. The order impugned does not recite as to what was the date of the notice and by which mode it was served. 2. Sri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions and file short affidavit bringing on record the aforesaid aspects. 3. Put up as fresh on 18.12.2025." 6. Pos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 (M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 19.12.2025. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be resorting too the proceedings under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 is perfectly valid in accordance with law and an order came to be passed within the four corners of law as there were violations committed by the writ petitioner. He further submits that though the writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the original authority dated 28.10.2024 but the appeal has been rejected by the third respondent on 10.09.2025 while holding that despite service of notice through online in the port....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It would amount to immense waste of productive time and money, both by the revenue authorities and the assessee's. Plainly, at present it may remain impractical and therefore, an undesirable course to be adopted. In any case, admittedly, the entire adjudication order has not even been attempted to be served through e-mail. Therefore, that order may never be described to have been 'communicated' to the petitioner, through e-mail, for the purpose of Section 107 of the State/Central Act." 12. At this juncture, Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel submits that whatever might be in order to sort out the controversy, a date be fixed by this Court on which date, the writ petitioner may appear and set-forth the stand. 1....