9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt herein did not appear as such. It is not known as to why after the case was reserved for orders on 29.04.2024 it was once again listed on 18.07.2024. On that day at least, the counsel for the appellant could have been heard. If he was absent on that day, an opportunity ought to have been given with possibly a warning to the appellant to ensure that his counsel was present on the next date of hearing. However, we find that on 18.07.2024, possibly the matter was again reserved and on 25.07.2024, the impugned order has been passed. The fact remains that the counsel for the appellant herein who had the advantage of an order of bail in his favour granted by the trial Court, was not heard in the matter and the impugned order of cancellation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Bail Application No.179/2022 (C.I.S. No.3052 of 2023) under Sections 132(1) (c) (f) of CGST Act, 2017. However, the respondent Union of India filed SB Criminal Application No.168 before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court seeking cancellation of the said bail. Learned senior counsel during the course of his submission drew our attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order to contend that the impugned order has been passed by the High Court in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant being heard. Although, his written submissions were on record, the same could not have been considered in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant being heard in the matter as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the judgment has been pronounced on 25.072024, in between the matter was taken up on 18.07.2024 on which date the counsel for the appellant herein did not appear as such. It is not known as to why after the case was reserved for orders on 29.04.2024 it was once again listed on 18.07.2024. On that day at least, the counsel for the appellant could have been heard. If he was absent on that day, an opportunity ought to have been given with possibly a warning to the appellant to ensure that his counsel was present on the next date of hearing. However, we find that on 18.07.2024, possibly the matter was again reserved and on 25.07.2024, the impugned order has been passed. The fact remains that the counsel for the appellant herein who had the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
