9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he challenge in the Writ Petitions is to the Order-in-Original dated 23.09.2022 passed by the first respondent and the consequential bank attachment notice dated 20.04.2024 and to quash the same. 3. M/s. S.P. Sri Harini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the Order-in-Original, impugned in W.P. No. 14403 of 2024 was passed as early as on 23.09.2022, the same was received by the petitioner through e-mail only on 31.07.2024, therefore, the petitioner was not aware as to what has happened earlier, which culminated in the impugned order; that though in the impugned order, dated 23.09.2022 there is reference to the show cause notice dated 25.07.2019 and 10.02.2021, the petitioner has not been issued with any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the impugned order was sent to the petitioner's e-mail address finally on 31.07.2024. 5. Refuting the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner-Company was registered under the provisions of the Service Tax Act during which period, the petitioner has authorized the Auditor as his Official Representative, but subsequent to the introduction of GST regime, the petitioner got registered under the provisions of the GST Act, however, the petitioner failed to authorize the Auditor for GST matters, at which point of time, show cause notice was issued by the first respondent to the petitioner's Auditor, which the Auditor failed to inform the petitioner. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and remand the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration, then, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 7.5% and thus, prayed for appropriate orders. 6. In reply, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent would submit that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter for re-consideration by setting aside the impugned orders, then, the petitioner may be directed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax. 7. Heard Mr. S.P. Sri Harini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ramesh Kutty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of order that is to be passed in this Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the same returned with an endorsement, ''No such Person'', is concerned, as noticed above, that subsequent to the introduction of GST Regime, the petitioner shifted their business premises and when the fact remains that the petitioner also intimated about change of business premises both to the first respondent-Department as well as through GST Portal, the respondent ought to have served the impugned order to the petitioner's new address and not to the old address. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it was only owing to the fault on the part respondent-Department, the petitioner became unaware of the entire proceedings and was not in a position to respond to such notices, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
