9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter our order dated 09.01.2024 followed by few more orders directing the petitioner to file the additional affidavit brining on record copy of the reply, the additional affidavit was filed stating inter alia that the reply was not filed. Even with the additional affidavit, the alleged draft reply which has been annexed, does not bear any date - such acts cannot be condoned. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has tried to abuse the process of the writ Court. He has unnecessarily engaged this Court in such a matter which deserved dismissal on the first hearing, the petitioner having failed to file reply to the show cause notice and thus not having availed the opportunity of hearing granted, could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition. 4. The impugned order also mentioned that the petitioner filed the reply dated 02.04.2023 in the very first sentence, though in the later part it was mentioned that the reply was not filed. 5. On 05.12.2023, the following order was passed:- The petitioner s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 03.04.2023. Previously, show-cause notice dated 02.03.2023 was issued stating the reasons for the proposed order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed reply on 02.04.2023 but the same has not been considered while passing the order dated 03.04.2023. 3. The order of cancellation in the first sentence mentioned about the reply dated 02.04.2023 but in next sentence it is mentioned that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly on the ground that the petitioner s reply dated 02.04.2023 in respect to the show-cause notice dated 02.03.2023 was not considered. 2. In the order of cancellation, it is mentioned that no reply to the show cause notice was submitted though in the first sentence the date of reply was mentioned as 02.04.2023. 3. Sri A.V. Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents based on the written statement received from the Assistant Commissioner (ST) FAC, Nellore-II circle, submits that the show cause notice was issued on 02.03.2023. Subsequently, opportunity for personal hearing was given to the petitioner to appear on or before 30.03.2023 but the petitioner did not file any reply against the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny date. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that the reply was not filed, and though the reply was prepared but it remained in the records of the petitioner and was not uploaded as well. He has referred to Para 4 of the additional affidavit. 16. Para 4 of the additional affidavit reads as under:- 4. The petitioner submits that filing of the returns under the CGST, 2017, was being handled by Sri Mahesh, Tax Practitioner. The petitioner was not aware of non-filing of the returns consecutively for a period of six months from February, 2023. As there was no business operations from the said month, the petitioner was also under the bona fied impression that no return need be filed and therefore the said issue had not been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order is concerned, the same resulted because it is automatically generated by the system, in every order, on the expiry of the period granted to file reply, taking the date of the show cause notice and the period granted for filing the reply. He submits that the relevant is the later part in the order which mentioned that the reply was not filed. 19. Be it as it may, as regards the submission of the learned Government Pleader, but we are not satisfied with the oral explanation offered by learned Government Pleader. In the order there should be no contradictions i.e. to mention firstly that, the reply was filed and secondly that the reply was not filed. Either it is filed or it is not filed. The order must reflect the true posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not bear any date. We cannot and must not condone such acts. 22. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has tried to abuse the process of the writ Court. He has unnecessarily engaged this Court in such a matter which deserved dismissal on the first hearing, the petitioner having failed to file reply to the show cause notice and thus not having availed the opportunity of hearing granted, could not be heard complaining violation of the principles of natural justice. He has encroached upon the public time on various dates, which could have been utilized in some other cases. 23. We dismiss the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the petitioner. 24. Let the costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
