SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1996

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, DONADI RAMESH
Siddh Sales Corporation – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Yashonidhi Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 23.02.2024 passed under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(5) of the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Primarily, challenge raised is to the ex parte nature of the order. It has been urged, no proper notice to file reply and in any case, no prior notice of hearing was served to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.

4. On such submissions we had required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain written instructions. Earlier, instructions had been obtained indicating that the impugned order had been passed after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, on 09.04.2024 we had passed the below quoted order :

    "1. Sri. Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel relies on the written instructions received by him. Copy of the same has been has been marked as 'X' and retained on record. It reveals, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The written instructions further records that appropriate entries are recorded on the order sheet.

    2. Put up as fresh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top