TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT:- The order was served on the driver and, therefore, was definitely not served on a person who would have been aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the service on the driver was no service at all. Petition allowed. - Writ Tax No. - 1366 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2020 - Siddhartha Varma, J. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal For the Respondent : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner deposited ₹ 9,15,802.85 and got it's goods released. This amount was paid towards the Central Goods and Service Tax and State Goods and Service Tax along with the penalty. The tax imposed was ₹ 69,849.37 paisa. and the penalty under the CGST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has submitted that in the counter affidavit in paragraph 5, it had been admitted that order for depositing ₹ 2,79,397.48 was served upon the driver of the vehicle, Sri Narendra Kumar who was a driver of the transport agency and, therefore, the order was neither served on the consignee nor on the consignor. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation for the filing of the appeal commenced on 20.8.2018 itself. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the order was served on the driver and, therefore, was definitely not served on a person who would have been aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the service on the driver was no service at all. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
