Disposed

Ram Prakash v. M/O Finance, D/O Revenue

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./556/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjourns the original application without merit analysis. The court directs the applicant to file a fresh representation within 15 days, which the respondents must decide within two months via a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh representation within 15 days; direction to respondents to decide said representation within two months with a reasoned order.

Ram Prakash vs M/O Finance, D/O Revenue — CAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page 1 of 2

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

¶3

Original Application No. 332/00556/2026 This the 11^th day of September, 2026

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J

¶5

Ram Prakash, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra, R/o L.M.I.C. Vindsar, Lucknow, Nilmatha, Cantt, Sarda Nagar, Kataribagh, Lucknow.

¶6

…..Applicant.

¶7

By Advocate: Shri Dhruv Srivastava.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.

¶10

2. Chief Commissioner, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow Zone, 7- A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001.

¶11

3. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Kanpur 117/7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur-208005.

¶12

..... Respondents.

¶13

By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.

¶14

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶16

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if this O.A. is disposed of by giving permission to the applicant to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance with a direction to the respondents to

¶17

Page 2 of 2

¶18

consider and dispose of the said representation filed by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time to be fixed by this Tribunal.

¶19

3. To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s fresh representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then a period of at least two months may be allowed for the same.

¶20

4. Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the applicant to prefer a fresh representation within fifteen days from today and respondents/ competent authority shall consider and decide the said fresh representation filed by the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law and relevant rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant.

¶21

5. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.

¶22

The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.

¶23

(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J)

¶24

Amit Kumar

¶25

Ak/-

Ram Prakash v. M/O Finance, D/O Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash v. M/O Finance, D/O Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary