Back
PRITINKER DIWAKER, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Dev Builder – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise – Respondent
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.
Administrative orders must follow due process, including proper notice to parties involved.
Adjudication orders must provide fair opportunity to the noticee; failure to do so renders proceedings irregular and contrary to statutory provisions.
Effective service of notice under the GST Act is critical, with failure to serve properly resulting in quashing of demand and recognition of violation of natural justice principles.
Procedural fairness is essential in tax proceedings; failure to provide notice of personal hearing invalidates the order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
