9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso indicated as well as the venue of the personal hearing was also clarified, however, as the petitioner had moved an application seeking adjournment, a second reminder was issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2021 in which the date by which the reply was to be submitted was fixed as 25.02.2022. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notices denying the allegations levelled against him. However, without granting an opportunity of hearing, which is required under section 75(4) of the GST Act, an order came to be passed against the petitioner confirming the demands as raised in the show cause notice. The said order is on record. Although the reply filed by the petitioner was mentioned in the adjudication order, however, fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as having become time barred. 3. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 04.10.2023, the records have been produced. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that while a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner under section 74 of the Act and in the first reminder issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2021, the date for filing the reply was fixed as 01.11.2021, the date of personal hearing was also fixed on 01.11.2021, the time of personal hearing was also indicated as well as the venue of the personal hearing was also clarified, however, as the petitioner had moved an application seeking adjournment, a second reminder was issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2021 in which the date by wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icals vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and two others as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Santosh Traders vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ Tax No.174 of 2023 decided on 28.08.2023 wherein this Court following the judgment in the case of M/s Bharat Mint (supra) had quashed the assessment orders solely on the ground that no opportunity of hearing, which is required under section 75(4) of the Act was granted to the petitioner. 6. Considering the fact that in the present case also, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, neither any date for hearing was fixed, as such, following the said two judgments in the case of M/s Bharat Mint (supra) and M/s Santosh Traders (supra), the writ petition deserves t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
