TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if the petitioner is disputing the delivery, it is for the petitioner to demonstrate the same before the appropriate authority. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition against the order in original dated 20.3.2017 Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. - W.P. ( No. 4063 of 20 20 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 1. This writ petition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter afresh in view of the payments made by the petitioner for the second time under threat of coercion. E. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing justice to the petitioners. 2. At the outset, it is observed that the petitioner has challenged the Order in Original dated 20.03.2017 by filing the writ petition before this Court on 15.12.2020. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Order in Original was never served upon the petitioner and it was only when the petitioner took steps before the authorities the order was communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to challenge the same. 7. He submits that from the perusal of Annexure 11 of the present writ petition which is the letter dated 5.11.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (P V), CGST CX, Ranchi to the Chief Commissioner, CGST CX, Ranchi Zone, Patna, it has been mentioned that the Order in Original dated 20.3.2017, addressed to the registered business address as well as residential address of the petitioner, were duly delivered as per records available with the concerned division. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the impugned order in original dated 20.3.2017 is an appealable order as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. This Court is of the view that the dispute, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
