2026 (4) TMI 1143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the learned Standing Counsel. Shri N.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at bar that he is in a position to argue the matter and he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the fresh stage. The case of the petitioner is that a notice came to be issued under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (in short the 'Act') referable to the assessment year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2023. The said notice according to the petitioner was uploaded by respondent no. 2 Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 12 on the 'Additional Notice and Order Tab' on GST portal and it was not served upon the petitioner through e-mail or SMS thus, the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wn to be 17.10.2023 and date of personal hearing was entered as 4.10.2023. Submission is that once the reply is to be submitted at a particular date then personal hearing cannot be on a date which is anterior for which the reply is to be submitted thus, it is submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 (Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr.) so as to further contend that the order came to be passed after a period of approximately 2 months thus, proprietary demanded that the petitioner ought to have been put to notice in that regard and ex-parte order could not have been passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate anterior and prior to the last date when the petitioner is to submit his reply. Plainly and simply, they could not have fixed the date prior to the last date of submission to the reply to the show cause notice fixing the date as 17.10.2023. Apart from the same, perusal of the supplementary affidavit shows that the appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the memo of appeal is that page 5 of the supplementary affidavit relevant extract at page 7 shows that in item no.17-B, ground for condonation of delay raised and so much so para 1 shows that the petitioner had taken a ground that he was not served with the copy of the order passed by the original authority and as soon as the same came to be serve....