9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, on receipt of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 notice dated 20.10.2023, issued by the respondent, which were followed by reminder Notices Nos. 1 and 2 dated 04.01.2024 and 22.01.2024 respectively, filed a reply in Form DRC-06 dated 15.02.2024, however, reminder Notice No.3 was issued by the respondent dated 22.04.2024, stating the the reply, that was uploaded by the petitioner was not visible clearly, and thereby, the petitioner was required to produce the reply manually on 24.04.2024 and personal hearing was also fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order and that apart, the reply filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that since the reply, that was uploaded by the petitioner was not visible clearly, the petitioner was asked to file reply manually on 24.04.2024 by virtue of the third reminder notice dated 22.04.2024 and was also called upon to appear for the personal hearing on 23.04.2024; despite the same, the petitioner neither filed reply annually, nor appeared during the personal hearing, therefore, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, it cannot be stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst issue pertains to the receipt of advance and the second issue relates to the sale transaction that took place outside the State. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that mere receipt of the advance will not ipso facto amount to supply and as regards the second issue, it is contended that the petitioner had already remitted the tax with regard to the sales occurred outside the State by applying separate GST number and all these facts have been clearly set out by the petitioner, in their reply in Form DRC-06 dated 15.02.2024, whereas, respondent, without taking into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in Form DRC-06, has passed the impugned order by stating that no reply was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.3 Further, in the present case, it is seen that by virtue of the Reminder Notice No.3, dated 22.04.2024, the petitioner was called upon to appear for the personal hearing within 24 hours (i.e. on 23.04.2024) and file reply manually within 48 hours (24.04.2024) and within another 24 hours, the impugned order came to be passed i.e. 25.04.2024. Had the real intention of the respondent is to provide fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee to put forth their defence, the same should be extended to the petitioner-assessee and it should not be a nominal one. Thus, in the present case, under the guise of providing opportunity, the petitioner-assessee has been called for to file reply within a short span of time. Therefore, as right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
