Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ASHRAF MOTTAMMAL, SAFFEER MOTTAMMAL, PARAMBATHKANDI KUNNIYIL RUKSANA – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT, PALAKKAD NORTH RANGE, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge based on non-service of summary notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's view on the issue of prejudice and notice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
In all these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order-in-
original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act , which is produced as Ext.P3 in all these writ petitions. In all these cases, the grievance of the petitioner is that, along with the notice to initiate proceedings under Section 74 , the petitioners were not served with the summary of the notices in form DRC-01 as contemplated under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules. According to the petitioner, due to the non issuance of Form DRC-01, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to make the payment as contemplated under Subsection (8) of Section 74 of the CGST Act .
2. In the writ petitions, the original challenge was that, Ext.P3 orders were passed without issuing notice to the petitioners. However, when the respondent produced the copies of the show cause notices under Section 74 issued to the petitioners, a new contention is raised by the petitioners to the effect that, even according to the respondent, DRC-01 was issued to the petitioners only on 19/05/20
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
