Allowed

M/S Pinky Marbles v. Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CW/4297/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an impugned order under Section 75(5) of CGST Act, holding that the revenue authority failed to pass an order on a petition's adjournment request received shortly before the scheduled hearing date, thereby denying a fair opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.09.2023 quashed; matter directed to be re-adjudicated after giving last opportunity of personal hearing.

M/S Pinky Marbles Vs Director General of Goods and… — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4297/2024

¶3

M/s Pinky Marbles, Having Its Principal Place Of Address Sawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan (305-407) Through Its Proprietor Shri Ghanshyam Tak S/o Shri Bodu Ram Tak, Resident Of Nai Basti, Naya Ghar, Gulab Bari, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Director General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, C-62, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (302-001)

¶7

Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Division-K, Ajmer, Central Revenue Building, Opposite Sessions Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan (305-001)

¶8

Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Room No. 66-A, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, 1St Floor, Main Building, Gate 2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal with Mr. Mayank Taparia through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari Mr. Kinshuk Jain

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

10/05/2024

¶15

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 29.09.2023, with a limited prayer that opportunity of

¶16

[CW-4297/2024]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

hearing was not provided to the petitioner in accordance with Section 75(5) of CGST Act.

¶19

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the matter was fixed on 29.08.2023 for personal hearing. On that date, on request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.09.2023, thereafter, the matter was adjourned for personal hearing on 27.09.2023. Prior to that date, petitioner had sent a request for adjourning the case to November, 2023 vide letter dated 20.09.2023 which was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023. It is also contended that instead of giving third adjournment, respondent had passed the impugned order on 29.09.2023 under Section 75(5) of CGST Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that third opportunity was given to the petitioner and he did not appear on 27.09.2023, hence, the order was passed on 29.09.2023. It is also contended that it is not mandatory that in all matters, three adjournments have to be given.

¶21

We have considered the contentions.

¶22

A limited prayer made before the Court is for quashing of the order dated 29.09.2023 and for affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the case was listed for hearing on 29.08.2023 on that date, time was sought and the matter was posted on 20.09.2023. Thereafter, as no one appeared on 20.09.2023, the matter was adjourned to 27.09.2023. A request letter was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023, however, since the request letter was received on 26.09.2023, the authority ought to have passed some order on the request letter on 27.09.2023.

¶23

[CW-4297/2024]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

We are of the considered view that some order ought to have been passed on the request letter received by the respondent, however, without passing any order on the request letter, the matter was kept for order on 27.09.2023, hence, we deem it proper to allow the writ petition.

¶26

Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 is quashed and set aside.

¶27

Respondents are directed to re-adjudicate the matter after giving last opportunity of personal hearing and then pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law.

¶28

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶30

HEENA/7

M/S Pinky Marbles v. Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pinky Marbles v. Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Altaf Hussain Son of Shri Anwar Hussain

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Sudhanshu Mathur S/O Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Ram Niwas Yadav Son of Shri Shiv Narayan Yadav

Balchand Son of Chunya Vs Nathulal S/O Chunni Lal Raiger

Koyali Devi W/O Mangal Chand Vs Barfi Devi W/O Shri Mahadev

Pankaj Jain S/O Shri Surendra Kumar Vs the Commissioner, Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad