??Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma 672Series (CAPS)??
CA. Praveen Sharma (Corporate Trainer)
Co-Founder @ The GST Mitra | Financial Modeling, Financial Analysis
?The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2024, alleging a lack of sufficient opportunity to file a reply and attend a personal hearing.
?Despite submitting a reply in Form DRC-06 on 15.02.2024, the respondent issued Reminder Notice No.3 on 22.04.2024, stating the reply was unclear and requiring a manual submission by 24.04.2024, with a hearing fixed on 23.04.2024.
?The petitioner became aware of the notice only after the hearing date had lapsed, leading to the impugned order being passed without due consideration.
?The Court found that the respondent failed to provide a fair opportunity and should have issued a notice through RPAD or other accessible modes instead of merely uploading it online.
?The rapid timeline—notice on 22.04.2024, hearing on 23.04.2024, reply submission by 24.04.2024, and order on 25.04.2024—was deemed unreasonable.
???????????’?? ????????????????:
?The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is set aside.
?The matter is remanded for reconsideration.
?The petitioner may file a manual reply within two weeks.
?The respondent must provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing and decide the matter per law.
Ask with https://taxbotgpt.ai/ for more information.
CA. Praveen Sharma
Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, Mediator & Mentor
1 周Alisha Kochar
Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, Mediator & Mentor
1 周Advocate Khoj
Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, Mediator & Mentor
1 周The court is taking a hard view in case the notices are not properly served