2026 (4) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....liance affidavit dated 01.12.2025 has been filed by the Appellant in pursuance of the order dated 04.11.2025 with the contention that the Appellant was permitted to accept service on the Respondents by publication in seven newspapers and in compliance of the said directions of this Appellate Tribunal, the notice was published in newspapers of English as well as in vernacular languages. 3. It is also stated that the newspaper wherein the notice was published were having vide circulation in Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondents are ordinarily residing or having their head office. Copy of the aforesaid newspapers is also enclosed with the affidavit. 4. Keeping in view tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Learned Counsel for the Appellant was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17900/ 2025, Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, DZU & Ors. vs. Kings Security Guard Services Private Limited and for this reason, he could not appear before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and vide order dated 16.05.2025 the petition of the Appellant was dismissed for non-prosecution. 8. It is further submitted that the Appellant has moved a Restoration Application before the Learned Adjudicating Authority contending specifically that on 16.05.2025 the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, namely, Mr. Dhruv Dev Gupta was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for that reason he could no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 however, submits that he is not having objection so far as the prayer of the Appellant with regard to the acceptance of his restoration application is concerned. 13. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Party and have perused the record and find that it was on 10.03.2025 and 16.05.2025, Learned Counsel for the Appellant did not remain present before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and for this reason the petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority by passing the impugned order dated 09.06.2025. 14. We also notice that the reason for non presence before the Learned Adjudicating Authority has been taken by the Appellant in terms that their counsel, namely, ....