The requests of the petitioner was ignored and hence there was clear cut violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the second respondent
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal - The petitioner challenged the order for the assessment year for the month of May-2019 and sought for mandamus directing the second respondent for giving an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2019 filed appeal before the second respondent under Section 107(11). The second respondent dismissed the first appeal without mentioning any further notice to the petitioner though requested. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent without hearing the petitioner and without providing an opportunity has passed the impugned order which is in contravention of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the second respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner has passed the impugned order. Thus, impugned order passed by the second respondent is in contravention of principles of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the appeal afresh after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
The requests of the petitioner was ignored and hence there was clear cut violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the second respondent
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017— Appeal - The petitioner challenged the order for the assessment year for the month of May-2019 and sought for mandamus directing the second respondent for giving an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2019 filed appeal before the second respondent under Section 107(11). The second respondent dismissed the first appeal without mentioning any further notice to the petitioner though requested. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent without hearing the petitioner and without providing an opportunity has passed the impugned order which is in contravention of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the second respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner has passed the impugned order. Thus, impugned order passed by the second respondent is in contravention of principles of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the appeal afresh after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.