9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 73(5) dated 04/12/2023 bearing No. DCCT(IA&1)/Mys./T.No./2023-24 along with the summary form DRC 01A bearing reference no. ZD291223006984A issued by the Respondent No. 1 and enclosed as Annexure B1. b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing the show cause notice u/s 73(1) dated 13/12/2023 bearing No. DCCT(IA&I)/Mys./T.No./202324 along with the summary form DRC 01 bearing reference no. ZD2912230322070 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and enclosed as Annexure B2. c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing the adjudication order u/s 73(9) dated 28/12/2023 bearing No. DCCT(IA&I)/Mys./T.No./202324 along with the summary form DRC 07 bearing reference no. ZD291223089082D issued by the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, who was denied sufficient and reasonable opportunity to be heard and put forth his claim, the respondent has illegally proceeded to recover the amount from the petitioner even before the expiry of three months as mentioned in the notice as contemplated under Section 78 of the KGST Act and consequently, the impugned adjudication order deserves to be set aside and the amount recovered from the petitioner by the respondent deserves to be refunded to the petitioner by remitting the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned AGA supports the impugned order and submits that respondents under the proviso to Section 78 were entitled to reduce the period from three months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered e-mail ID of the petitioner or physically to the petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances, I am of considered opinion that non serving of the Show Cause Notice upon the petitioner and non-providing/non-granting of personal hearing and passing the impugned adjudication order, is violative of principle of natural justice warranting interference of this Court and consequently, the impugned adjudication order deserves to be quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner that the adjudication order was served upon the petitioner along with the notice under Section 78 of the KGST Act calling upon the petitioner to pay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner to pay the determined amount within a period of three months as contemplated under proviso to Section 78, the proviso would be clearly inapplicable especially when no reasons have been assigned by the respondent in the notice accompanying the adjudication order. Under these circumstances, the proviso could not have been invoked by the respondent and consequently, the necessary directions are to be issued to the respondent to refund the amount recovered from them. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) Impugned adjudication order at Annexure-B3 under Section 73 dated 28.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed. iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
