Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Alok Mathur & Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, JJ.
-
Jameel Ahmad for the Petitioner.
-
Sanjay Sarin, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged ex parte assessment proceedings and consequential bank account freezing orders for the period 2020-21, contending that no statutory notices were served by the jurisdictional officer under CGST Act. The petitioner contended that as a breach of natural justice because it did not receive any communication regarding the assessment or subsequent orders. However, records showed that notices were issued and served in accordance with Section 169 of CGST Act. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner had been duly communicated by the jurisdictional officer under CGST and no exceptional circumstances, including violation of natural justice, were established. The Court held that, in the absence of any violation of fundamental rights, the writ petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek relief through the statutory appellate remedy under Sections 73, 107, and 169 of the CGST Act and the Uttar Pradesh GST Act.
List of Cases Referred to
- Sakthi Steel Trading v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2024] 159 taxmann.com 233 (Madras) (para 7)
- Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders v. Deputy State Tax Officer [2025] 176 taxmann.com 318 (Madras) (para 7)
- Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd [2021] 130 taxmann.com 180/52 GSTL 385/88 GST 799 (SC) (para 17)
- CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36/217 Taxman 143/357 ITR 357 (SC) (para 20).
