The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 8th March 2024 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay and the petitioner had failed to make out sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the statutory period. The court observed that justice will be sub-served if the appeal is directed to be heard out on merits subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State Revenue Authorities.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.03.2024 on the ground that the petitioner`s reply was not considered. On account of the failure of the respondent to duly consider the petitioner`s reply and record reasons for rejecting such reply, orders impugned herein cannot be sustained. The impugned orders in original are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration.

The amount of tax involved is only Rs. 1,31,998/- (Rs. 65,992/- x 2) and considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 41,475/- has already been recovered form the petitioner towards arrears of due under the impugned order, the impugned order stands quashed by giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file written objections or attend the personal hearing. By taking into account the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits by putting the petitioner on terms.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.

T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

An order in original dated 18.08.2023 is assailed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner`s reply dated 29.07.2022 indicates that the sales turnover as per the return in Form CMP-08 was Rs. 6,37,595/-. In the impugned order, the turnover of Rs. 5,47,405/- was taken into account. It appears that this sum was compared with the purchase value as per the supplier`s GSTR 1 statement. The tax proposal was confirmed on the basis that the tax payer did not respond to the show cause notice. In view of the assertion that the tax payer could not participate in proceedings on account of being unaware of the same, the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be provided an opportunity by putting the petitioner on terms.

Honble Court do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated. Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.