M/S Dev Builder vs. Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise
Held
The Court acknowledged the dispute regarding the service of notice upon the petitioner. In light of the parties' mutual agreement, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order dated January 20, 2023. The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with the law. Following the issuance of the fresh notice, the petitioner would be at liberty to respond within the timeframe stipulated in the notice. Subsequently, the respondents are to proceed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that where there is a dispute regarding the service of notice and both parties agree to a procedural correction, the Court will facilitate a fair process by allowing for fresh notice and adjudication.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Dev Builder, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Agra. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper notice. The respondent Revenue, however, asserted that notices were indeed issued to the petitioner. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the petitioner had been duly served with notice prior to the impugned order being passed. The parties mutually agreed to a resolution where the impugned order would be set aside, allowing the respondents to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Agra, is an ex-parte order, and if so, whether it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of proper notice on the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order under challenge was ex-parte and that proper notice was not served upon them, leading to a violation of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The respondent Revenue contended that notices were in fact issued to the petitioner. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the Revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the ex-parte nature of the order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200292-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 786 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Dev Builder Respondent :- Commissioner, Central Gst And Central Excise Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue.
The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Agra. According to the petitioner the said order is ex-parte, however, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the notices were in fact issued to the petitioner.
From the averments made in the writ petition it appears that the dispute exist as regards the service of notice upon the petitioner.
Parties have proposed that the order impugned may be set-aside giving liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice in accordance with law which may be responded by the petitioner within the time frame fixed in the notice and thereafter fresh order be passed.
In view o
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.