Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA, JJ
M/s ANANT WIRE INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 83 & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insufficient notice service under cgst act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. clarification on the requirement of adequate notice service. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court mandates re-adjudication of the case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 21st February, 2024, on the ground that the said order has been passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 5th September, 2023 (hereinafter, the ‘Show Cause Notice’) which was not received by the Petitioner.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice appears to have been uploaded on the Goods and Services Tax portal under the category of‘AdditionalNoticesandOrders’andtherefore,thesamewasneverreceived by him.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that benefit ought to be given to the Petitioner on the ground that the Show Cause Notice W.P.(C)17867/2024 Page1of was not received by the Petitioner. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II [W.P. (C) No. 926
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
