Back
PRITINKER DIWAKER, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Sri Bala Ji Marbles – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
It is the case of the petitioner that the notice dated 07.10.2021 Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) of CGST Act was never served upon the petitioner and consequent thereto an ex-parte order has been passed whereby a sum of Rs. 2,34,450/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty.
2. From the tenor of the order that has been passed by the Respondent No. 2, it is more than apparent that the order is an ex-parte order.
3. In such view of the matter, since prima facie, the order impugned is an ex-parte order, we set aside the same and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no. 2 to pass fresh orders after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. It is also expected that the petitioner shall cooperate in the proceeding and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.
Administrative orders must follow due process, including proper notice to parties involved.
The court emphasized that ex-parte orders violate natural justice when parties are not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard.
A writ petition is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available, particularly concerning the principles of natural justice and appropriate communication.
Adjudication orders must provide fair opportunity to the noticee; failure to do so renders proceedings irregular and contrary to statutory provisions.
Point of Law :Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 37C of the Act, in case of service of notice by speed post, the same has to be with proof of delivery.
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
