TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand. - Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary And Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla JJ. For the Petitioner : Sudeep Kumar,Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Radhika Varma For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. ORDER 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing the Prayer No.1, at this stage with liberty to raise the same at the appropriate stage and he is only pressing the Prayer No.2 of the present pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court may entertain a writ petition depending upon facts of each case. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down inflexible rule to be applied rigidly for entertaining a writ petition. Some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:- (i) Where there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take the action or to pass the order impugned. (ii) Where vires of an Act, Rules, Notification or any of its provisions has been challenged. (iii) Where an order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Where enforcement of any fundamental right is sought by the petitioner. (v) Where procedure requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsity of Lucknow,(2009) 2 SCC 630 (para 22 and 23), Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (AA), (2009) 14 SCC 338. 14, Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd., (2010) 14 SCC 553 (paras 6,7,10 and 12), Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697, Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 (paras 79, 80, 81, 82,86,87 and 88), State of M.P. Vs. Sanjay Nagaich (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 34,35,38,39), State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 (para 11 to 19), Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, JT (2006) 12 SC 92, State of Tripura vs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740 para 4; Paradip Port Trust vs Sales Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said judgment has settled the principle that while determining the tax opportunity of personal hearing is required. The Court has also referred a large number of judgments in the said judgment wherein repeatedly the said principle has been confirmed. 6. In the present case also tax is determined against the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. 7. In view thereof, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of hearing before determination of any tax even under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. 8. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 9. The writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
