Back
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Reet Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 5.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') imposing tax Rs. 24,94,844/-, interest Rs. 24,10,224.36.
3. Submission is that the above order was preceded by the show cause notice dated 18.12.2022. The petitioner submitted its reply on 5.1.2023. In proof thereof, reliance has been placed on the acknowledgement issued to the petitioner through the online portal. Further, reply is disclosed to have been filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2023.
4. Despite such written replies submitted, the impugned order makes no discussion of the same. On the contrary, a perverse observation has been recorded therein that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notices issued to him.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions. On that strength, it has been admitted that inadvertent error has crept in the proceedings.
6. Since rules of natural justice are mandatory to the extent they bi
Natural justice principles require authorities to consider objections and provide a hearing before passing adverse orders.
Procedural fairness is essential in tax proceedings; failure to provide notice of personal hearing invalidates the order.
Adjudication orders must provide fair opportunity to the noticee; failure to do so renders proceedings irregular and contrary to statutory provisions.
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
