9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of impugned order - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it appears that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, wherein it has been stated that it is the bounded duty of the Authority concerned to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Assessee in the event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N RAMASAMY For the Petitioner: Mr.D.Vijayakumar For the Respondent: Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader, for R1 ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat an opportunity of hearing should be granted if the respondent intends to pass an adverse order against the petitioner. When such being the case, contrary to the provisions of aforesaid Section, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent and hence, he requests this Court to set aside the said impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, wherein it has been stated that it is the bounded duty of the Authority concerned to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the Assessee in the event of passing any adverse order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is lifted. As a sequel, the 2nd respondent is directed to release the attachment and de-freeze the bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
