9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated. The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Mishra, SPC for R-1. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Shaguftha Badhwar and Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocates. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 13.03.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand has been created ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected the respondents to address the issue arising out of posting of information under two separate headings. As per the petitioner, the Menu View Additional Notices and Orders were under the heading of User Services and not under the heading View Notices and Orders . 6. This issue is further highlighted by another judgment of the Madras High Court dated 31.07.2023 in W.P. No. 22369/2023 and other connected petitions, wherein the Madras High Court has noticed as under:- 3. The only ground on which the, the impugned orders are under challenge is that the notices, which preceded the impugned orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for Additional Notices and Orders whereas, the notices should have been hosted by the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , titled Murugesan Jayalakshmi Vs. State Tax Officer, wherein the Madras High Court has noticed that the said issue has been addressed and the portal has been re-designed and both the View Notices tab and View Additional Notices tab are under one heading. 8. Clearly, petitioner has made out a case that petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respondent to the Show Cause Notice. 9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the taxpayer has not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, we are of the view that petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated. 10. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
