9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dedly, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of filing any reply or appearing before the Proper Officer. Consequently, the Proper Officer issued the impugned order on the basis that the petitioner was not existent at the given place of business. The impugned order notes that neither any reply in response to the impugned SCN was filed nor was there any representation on behalf of the petitioner on the appointed date - The petitioner contends that it had a filed reply to the impugned SCN on 27.04.2023. The same is incorrect and is based solely on the reference to a reply dated 27.04.2023 made in the impugned order. The petitioner s case as to why its registration be not cancelled has not been considered on merits. It is considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Delhi State GST Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2023:DHC:8838-DB; M/s. Green Polymers v. Union of India Ors: W.P.(C) 13941/2023 decided on 20.10.2023 ; the decision of the Tripura High Court in Dayamay Enterprise v. State of Tripura and Ors.: W.P.(C) No. 89/2021 decided on 22.02.2021 ; and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in KRD Enterprise through its Proprietor Nileepkumar Bhagvandas Rajput v. State of Gujarat : R/Special Civil Application No.5934/2022 decided on 24.03.2022, in support of its contention. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents counters the aforesaid contention. He submits that the impugned SCN was not issued on the dictates of another officer, but due to the fact that the communication sent to the petitioner was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to a reply dated 27.04.2023 made in the impugned order. The aforesaid reference is erroneous and finds mention on account of the erroneous template used for such orders. Whilst, the opening sentence of the impugned order indicates that it is in reference to the petitioner s reply dated 27.04.2023 in response to the impugned SCN. In fact, no reply was furnished by the petitioner and the same is mentioned in the subsequent sentence in the impugned order. 11. The petitioner has also not annexed a copy of the reply to the impugned SCN claimed to have been sent by the petitioner. 12. After the impugned order was passed, the petitioner filed an application dated 19.07.2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking revocatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
