9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.01.2025 of this court, mainly on the ground that since the show cause notice was itself without jurisdiction and was issued without complying with mandatory provision of Rule 142 of CGST Rules, the subsequent order is non est in light of the principle that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. Also, Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice, echoing the consistent judicial view that such procedural lapses are fatal to the validity of notices. ii) The invocation of Section 74 without allegations of tax evasion is inappropriate.
These petitions are admitted for final hearing and it is directed that effect and operation of common impugned final order dated 21.01.2025 shall remain stayed, pending adjudication of these petitions. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, mainly on the ground that the said show cause notice has been issued without complying with mandatory provisions of Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017 as the impugned show cause notice alongwith its summary thereof were not uploaded on the portal in electronic form and the impugned show cause notice and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground itself. To substantiate this ground, reliance has been placed on various judgments namely, New Hanumat Marbles Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 5 Centax 75 (P&H), Akash Garg Vs. State of M.P 2020 (11) TMI 786 (M.P), Shri Shyam Baba Edible Oils Vs. Chief Commissioner 2023 (7) Centax 81 (M.P), Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises Vs. State of Jharkhand 2023 (4) Centax 398 (Jhar.), wherein consistent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed common final order dated 21.01.2025 during the pendency of these petitions to which challenge has been made by the petitioners in their respective petitions by carrying out amendment in pursuance of order dated 23.01.2025 of this court, mainly on the ground that since the show cause notice was itself without jurisdiction and was issued without complying with mandatory provision of Rule 142 of CGST Rules, the subsequent order is non est in light of the principle that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 025 is bad in law and liable to be set aside. To substantiate this ground, reliance has been placed on Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (15) SCC 785 a n d Nishad K.U Vs. Joint Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise MANU/KE/5243/2024. 9. In view of the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioners, this court is of the considered opinion that prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioners and if the common impugned final order dated 21.01.2025 is not stayed during the pendency of the present petitions then the petitioners would suffer irreparably. 10. Accordingly, these petitions are admitted for final hearing and it is directed that effect and operation of common impugned final order dated 21.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
