2018 (5) TMI 1615 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Personal presence of Officials – Generation of E-way bill – Section 129 (3) of the UPGST 2017 – Held that: – we required the presence of respondent 3 to explain his conduct on the allegations made against him in the pleadings and the respondent no. 2 to suggest the ways and means to remedy the situation but it appears that we were misled by the petitioner and at the time of first hearing neither the fact had been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents nor we noticed the same and without noticing the fact we required the respondents no. 2 & 3 to be present in person.
–
Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed before us the p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
-III, Noida are present in person. Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General points out that the petitioner has been described as M/s Ashoka Enterprises through its proprietor Sri Fazil. The affidavit is also sworn by Sri Fazil describing himself to be sole proprietor of the firm. Vakalatnama has also been executed by Sri Fazil describing himself to be proprietor of the firm whereas the representation/application dated 02.05.2018 made before respondent no. 3 has been signed by Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal. Similarly undated application filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition in pursuance of the show cause notice under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'UPGST Act, 2017') goes to show that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
int of time and the reply was obtained under threat and coercion are sworn on the basis of the record which totally falsifies the averments in the said paragraphs. On 09.05.2018, we required the presence of respondent 3 to explain his conduct on the allegations made against him in the pleadings and the respondent no. 2 to suggest the ways and means to remedy the situation but it appears that we were misled by the petitioner and at the time of first hearing neither the fact had been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents nor we noticed the same and without noticing the fact we required the respondents no. 2 & 3 to be present in person. Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has also plac
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =