9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 14, 2021. Even thereafter the petitioner chose not to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Corona Pandemic substantially ebbed in the year 2021 and as opportunity was given for virtual hearing, the petitioner ought to have availed the same. The conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be a bona fide one. At such a belated point of time, the Court is of the opinion that, the matter is not required to be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. - HON BLE AMRITA SINHA, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagriti Mishra Mr. Subrata Pal Mr. Unus Ali Mr. Subham Gupta Mr. Debayan Goswami Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya. For the Respondents : Mr. Ratan Banik Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each and every occasion the petitioner replied to the notices and requested adjournment on account of non-availability of necessary details from his accountant. The Order-in-Original was passed on September 14, 2021. After the expiry of the period for preferring appeal, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court on February 23, 2023 seeking relief. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is an ex parte one. As he was not in a position to avail the opportunity of hearing granted to him, the matter may be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration on merits. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on an unreported order dated May 11, 2020 passed by the Hon ble D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny appeal between the time mentioned in the said order. Neither did the petitioner file appeal within the time prescribed in Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. It has been contended that at such belated point of time, the matter ought not to be remanded to the authority for reconsideration. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. The initial show cause-cum-demand notice which was issued on October 1, 2020 ought to have been replied within the time specified in the said notice or immediately thereafter. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice nearly ten months after the same was issued. Even at the adjudication stage, repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner for production of ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
