M/s Kashi Bartan Bhandar Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 556 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – [2018] 59 G S.T.R. 346 (All), 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 403 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-10-2018
WRIT TAX No. – 913 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ
For the Petitioner : Pooja Talwar
For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Anant Kumar Tiwari
ORDER
Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel appearing for the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-18, Varanasi. The pleadings exchanged by the parties have also been perused.
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-18, Varanasi, by which the registration of the petitioner as a dealer under the U.P. G.S.T. Act has been cancelled.
The main thrust of the argument of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ing closed, he is unable to point out any such basis or material except to submit that as no one was found at the place of business when the messenger had gone there, it was presumed that the business is lying closed.
The notice under the Act is required to be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 169 of the Act which provides that it can be served by giving or tendering it directly or by messenger to the person concerned or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with his business or to an adult member of the family residing with him; or by registered or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due by sending at the last known place of business or residence of the person concerned; or by sending a communication at its email address provided at the time of registration and amended from time to time; or by making it available on the common portal; or by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the person concerned has last resided or c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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. The name of the messenger or the time and date when he went to serve the notice has not been disclosed.
Lastly, 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 such email has been categorically denied by the petitioner. The petitioner has even annexed the printout of its e-mail inbox to show that no mail from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax was sent to the petitioner on 18.01.2018.
In view of the above, we are of the definite opinion that the petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice before passing of the impugned order and service through affixation could not have been res
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =