Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J., ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
M/S Dev Builder - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise - Respondent
WRIT TAX NO. 786 OF 2023.
Decided On : 17-10-2023
For the Petitioner: Aditya Pandey
For the Respondent: Gaurav Mahajan
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Headnote
(B) Judicial Procedure - The court reinforces the necessity for proper notice and adherence to due process in administrative determinations. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition arises from an order dated 20.01.2023, with a dispute over the service of notice on the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The petition is disposed of, requiring the issuance of a fresh notice to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue is the validity of the alleged ex-parte order and proper service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for administrative decisions to follow due process, mandating fresh notice issuance.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, fresh notice to be issued.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing of counsel for both parties. (Para 1) |
| 2. dispute about notice service status. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. proposed resolution to set aside order. (Para 4) |
| 4. mandated fresh notice issuance. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue.
2. The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Agra. According to the petitioner the said order is ex-parte, however, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the notices were in fact issued to the petitioner.
3. From the averments made in the writ petition it appears that the dispute exist as regards the service of notice upon the petitioner.
4. Parties have proposed that the order impugned may be set-aside giving liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice in accordance with law which may be responded by the petitioner within the time frame fixed in the notice and thereafter fresh order be passed.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the respondents to issue fresh notice, to the petitioner, in accordance with land and thereafter proceed to pass orders, strictly in accordance with law.
