9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petitioner challenges the Order-in-Original dated 30 April 2024 made by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (State GST). 4. The petitioner has incorrectly stated the non-availability of alternate and efficacious remedies. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that a clear averment should have been made that an alternate remedy was available and explained why the same was not efficacious in the facts of the present case. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition contains averments that show the impugned order was made in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. He submits that if a violation of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons now fall for our determination. 10. The impugned order refers to the following documents at the very outset; References- (1) Letter of Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central GST, Mumbai South located at 13th & 15th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 having Reference no F.No. V/CGST/M.South/A.E /Maa Jasol/483/2018, Mumbai, 29 September, 2020. (2) Revision Order For Cancellation of Registration (Ab-Initio) of M/s Jash Dealmark Ltd (GSTIN- 27AACCI8984F1Z4) issued by the Office of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (MUM-VAT-F-601) LTU-1, 3rd floor, Old Building, GST Bhavan, Mazgaon-400010. Having Reference-no. JC-LTU-1/Jash Dealmark Ltd/GST Revision/RC Cancellation order (ab-initio)/2021-22/b-592, Dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to in the show cause notice nor were the copies of these documents ever furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of these documents or, rather, came to know that such documents were being used against him only after the receipt of the impugned order. 12. Since the above documents form a substantial basis of the impugned order as stated in the impugned order itself, the petitioner should have been furnished copies or at least made aware in the show cause notice that such documents were proposed to be used against the petitioner. Since this was not done, we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a failure of natural justice. 13. Ms Vyas had relied on the statement in Paragraph 7 (xi) of Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were set aside the impugned order dated 30 April 2024, and remand the matter of the adjudicating officer for fresh decision following law. However, the respondents must furnish the documents at Sr.No.1, 2 and 3 referred to in the references in the impugned order and any other material they may seek to rely upon or use against the petitioner. The copies of such documents must be furnished to the petitioner, and the petitioner must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to deal with or explain such documents. The petitioner must be given an opportunity for a hearing, and the final order must be reasoned. 16. All the contentions of all the parties on merits are, however left open since we have not adverted to the rival contentions on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
