SCN requiring the assessee
to appear for personal
hearing on the “date, time
and venue, if mentioned in
table below", but no date,
time and venue for personal
hearing shown in the notice
(P.) Ltd. v. State
The petitioner contended that SCN under Section 74 was issued making mention about personal hearing to the effect that "you
may appear before the undersigned for personal hearing either in person or through authorized representative for representing
your case on the date, time and venue, if mentioned in table below", but no date, time and venue for personal hearing was shown
in the notice.
The High Court held that in the table given, captioned as "Details of personal hearing etc.", no Date, Time and Venue of personal
hearing was shown and in front of columns 3,4&5 of Date, Time and Venue, NA was mentioned, which was sufficient to infer that
no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 24.08.2022. The High Court further
observed that it is well settled that when due opportunity of hearing, as required under the law, has not been afforded and principle
of natural justice has not been followed, then the question of availability of alternative remedy does not come in the way for
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was held to be not sustainable and was
quashed and remitted back.
Case Referred- Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394 (All.)
Refund of IGST paid on
v. Union of India
The High Court held that since Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017- IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 has already been declared
ultravires by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore amount of Rs. 6,98,00,420/- paid by the petitioner as IGST on ocean freight of goods
imported during July, 2017 to December, 2019 be refunded alongwith the statutory rate of interest.
Case Referred- ADI Enterprises v. UOI being Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 10479
Order being passed in the
name of driver does not
preclude cosignor or the
consignee to challenge the
confiscation of goods along
with supporting documents
evidencing their ownership
v. State of U.P.
It was contended by the petitioner that since the impugned order was passed against the driver, it would not be open for the
cosignor or the consignee to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. It is otherwise not disputed that the impugned
order is appealable under the statute.
The High Court observed that the cosignor or the consignee were always at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along
with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership and merely because the order had been addressed to the driver of the
vehicle would not be to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of the cosigner or the consignee and thus court was not inclined
to entertain the challenge to the order impugned directly in the writ petition.
Grant of Bail on deposit of
amount and execution of
General of Gst
Jaipur Zonal Unit
The High Court observed that petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2022 and since then, he was in judicial custody. The challan of the
case had already been presented and no investigation was pending.
Taking into consideration the investigation and evidence so collected, in the opinion of the High Court, the trial would take
considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment
which was for five years. The High Court granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C with a condition to deposit
Rs. 3 crores by the petitioner before the respondent Department under protest and execution of a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
Case Referred- Vinay Kant Ameta v. UOI (Criminal Appeal No. 60/2022) decided on 10.01.2022 (SC