9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1414 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal. The Apex court in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT], has held that when statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed. In the present case, it is evident that sufficient opportunity of hearing through virtual mode was provided to the petitioner on 4.7.2022, 15.7.2022 and 10.8.2022 but neither the petitioner nor his authorised representative attended the personal hearings on the above dates. Thus, the contention of the petitioner with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in (2023) 109 GSTR 402. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44 has held that when a statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties. 6. In the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 611, the Apex Court has held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal. 7. The Apex court in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 305, has held that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservation on the merits of the case of the respondent. 9. In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has held that High Court can only interfere in the matters when disputed question of law are involved and not in the question of facts. In the present case, no disputed question of law is involved. In the present case, from perusal of para 17 of impugned order, it is evident that sufficient opportunity of hearing through virtual mode was provided to the petitioner on 4.7.2022, 15.7.2022 and 10.8.2022 but neither the petitioner nor his authorised representative attended the personal hearings on the above dates. Thus, the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing is contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
