2018 (11) TMI 556 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – [2018] 59 G S.T.R. 346 (All), 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 403 (All.) – Principles of Natural Justice – non-service of SCN – Cancellation of registration of dealer – UPGST Act – Held that:- In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner could not come to any conclusion that all previous modes as prescribed under Section 169 are not practicable for the service of notice and has directly resorted to service by affixation. In such a situation, service if any by affixation cannot be regarded as a proper service. Moreover, nothing on record has been brought to establish the time, date and place and the manner in which service by affixation was resorted to.
–
Similarly, there is no averment as to through whom the notice was sent for service – it has been stated that the show-cause notice was sent at the e-mail address of the petitioner on 18.01.2018 but again there is no material to support the said contention and the sending and receiving of any suc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r is that the aforesaid order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the show-cause notice alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2018 was never sent in any proper mode as prescribed under the Act and was not served upon the petitioner. Secondly, it has been contended that only on prima-facie satisfaction that the petitioner is not carrying any business without coming to any final conclusion thereof, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel, in response to the above argument has submitted that the show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner at its e-mail address as provided by it. It was also sent by messenger and affixed at some conspicuous place of business of the petitioner. On being specifically asked as to the basis on which the Assistant Commissioner has drawn the conclusion that the petitioner is not carrying any business and that its business is lying closed, he is unable to point ou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
des aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it at some conspicuous place, of his last known place of business or residence. It is only if the mode of service as provided in the earlier parts of Section 169 are not practicable that the authorities can resort to service of notice by affixation. In this regard the words "if none of the modes is practicable" are relevant and important. The use of the aforesaid words clearly indicates that it is only after the authorities are satisfied that all earlier methods are not practicable for service of notice that resort can be taken for service of notice by affixation. In the present case, we do not find that the Assistant Commissioner had come to any conclusion that all previous modes as prescribed under Section 169 are not practicable for the service of notice and has directly resorted to service by affixation. In such a situation, service if any by affixation cannot be regarded as a proper service. Moreover, nothing on record has been b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
stances of the case. The order impugned, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from the above, a bare reading of the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 discloses that it has been passed only on the basis of prima-facie opinion and the material on which such a prima-facie opinion was formed has not been indicated. The Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order on the basis of prima-facie opinion until and unless he was of a definite opinion that the petitioner has closed down the business. A feeble attempt was made by the Special Counsel to sabotage the hearing of the petition on merits on the ground that against the order of cancellation of the registration, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal. Notwithstanding the remedy of appeal, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to it for the simple reason that the petition was entertained and the parties have completed the pleadings to enable the Court to hear the matter on merits. Moreover, it
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =