9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Conferencing Mr. Daksh Pareek, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate with Mr. Akshat Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Punit Singhvi, Advocate with Mr. Ayush Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajay S. Rathore, Advocate & Ms. Shraddha Mehta, Advocate. ORDER PER 1. Heard. 2. Since these writ petitions raise identical issue of law for consideration of this Court, therefore, heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 3. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner in the matter of proceedings drawn and orders passed under Section 7, 9, 15, 50 and 73 of the Rajasthan Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the RGST Act of 2017')/the Central Goods and Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it appears that because of technical glitches, the same could not be reflected on the GSTIN Portal of the petitioner. Learned counsels for the respondents would submit that this is merely a technical glitch and cannot be said to be a deliberate action on the part of the respondents in denying opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Section 75 of the RGST Act of 2017/the CGST Act of 2017 contains general provisions relating to determination of tax. Sub-section (2) thereof explicitly provides that where any Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or Court concludes that the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 74 of that Act is not sustainable for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso goes as an undisputed factual position. This is clear from the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and the response received pursuant to that query which is also annexed along with the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, apparent that the statutory mandate was not complied with and impugned orders were passed against the petitioner in respect of different assessment years. 10. As petitioner's right of opportunity of personal hearing in the manner as provided under the law has been violated, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders on this ground alone. 11. Impugned order are, accordingly, set aside. The matters are remanded back to the competent authority for affording opportunity of person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
