9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was not granted personal hearing which is required and is mandatory under Section 75(4), as such, on that ground alone the order dated 01.10.2020 is quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law afresh, if so advised. Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Yashonidhi Shukla For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Both the said writ petitions arises out of the same order in respect to different financial years as the issues argued are same, the same are being decided by means of the present common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 01.10.2020 and the order dated 28.11.2020 are under challenge. In so far as the writ petition relates to challenge of the order dated 28.11.2020, whereby the appeal was dismissed for want of deposit, no interference is called for as it is well settled that the appeal is a creature of statute which can prescribe conditions for availing the said statutory remedy. The petitioner having not complied with the condition for availing statutory remedy of appeal, no fault can be found with the order dated 28.11.2020. However, the fact remains that the appeal has been dismissed without consideration, as such, the doctrine of merger would not apply and the order dated 01.10.2020 will not be deemed to have merged in the order dated 28.11.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse to such person . Learned Standing Counsel placed upon instruction has produced the order sheet which led to passing of the order dated 01.10.2020. The said instructions and the order sheet do not reveal that any order fixing date for hearing was ever served upon the petitioner. The order itself indicates that two dates were fixed for filing reply as are clear from the perusal of Annexure 6 to the petition. Both the said notices did not fix any date for personal hearing which is a mandatory condition in terms of Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act. The order dated 01.10.2020 also does not reveal that any personal hearing was accorded to the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
