9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have to be given access to the website of the department, after restoration of registration, with adequate time being given to the petitioner to gather all the details such as e-way bills, e-invoices, etc. In the present case, such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner as the appellate authority s order, restoring registration, was passed on 22.01.2024 and the impugned order has been passed on 24.01.2024. This Court is of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice rendering the impugned order invalid - Petition allowed. - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO And THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA FOR THE PETITIONER : JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA FOR THE RESPONDENT : GP F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy of Rs.31,20,23,862/-. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 was issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner-company demanding an amount of Rs.32,51,66,267/-, on account of discrepancies in the returns filed by the petitioner or to explain, by filing written objections, within 30 days, why such amount should not be collected from the petitioner. 5. The 2nd respondent, in the same show cause notice dated 26.12.2023, had also requested the petitioner to choose a date for personal hearing out of three dates, viz., 04.01.2024 or 18.01.2024 or 24.01.2024. 6. The petitioner, after receipt of this show cause notice, had approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a letter, dated 22.01.2024, requesting the 2nd respondent to restore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een treated as a response to the show cause notice. Thirdly, the presence of the authorized representatives at the office of the 2nd respondent, for submission of the letter dated 22.01.2024, has been treated as if the petitioner had availed the opportunity of personal hearing. 10. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the options given by the 2nd respondent are dated 04.01.2024, 18.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 whereas the personal hearing said to have been availed by the petitioner is on 22.01.2024, which is not in accord with the show cause notice of the 2nd respondent itself. 11. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would submit that the letter of the petitioner dated 22.01.2024 was in response t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to gather all the material required for his defense. This would mean that the petitioner would have to be given access to the website of the department, after restoration of registration, with adequate time being given to the petitioner to gather all the details such as e-way bills, e-invoices, etc. In the present case, such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner as the appellate authority s order, restoring registration, was passed on 22.01.2024 and the impugned order has been passed on 24.01.2024. 14. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice rendering the impugned order invalid. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
