9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner/s : Mr. Anubhav Khowala, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed at Annexure P/8 dated 18.04.2024 and the ground raised is of violation of the provision under Section 129 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for brevity 'the Act'). 2. The contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic holiday and hence the petitioner filed a reply on 12.04.2024. The order was passed on 18.04.2024 while it had to be passed at least on 12.04.2024 since the 11th was a public holiday. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 7985 of 2024 (Pawan Carrying Corporation vs Commissioner CGST & Central Excise & Ors). It is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Section 129 of the Act. 6. In M/s Sangam Wires (supra), according to us is not at all applicable since that was a case in which, on the date of issuance of notice, the order was also passed, where we found that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In Pawan Carrying Corporation (supra), though a notice was issued within the time provided in Section 129 (3), the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (3) is not followed. 9. Insofar as the contention under Section 129 (5), there is no proceeding to be concluded as on the date of payment, which is on 24.04.2024, since already an order was passed on 18.04.2024. It is also the assessee's submission that the payment was made only to get release of the vehicle, which payment was also as against the orders passed and not under Section 129 (1) (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
