^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

PINKY MARBLES vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE & OTHERS
(Rajasthan High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

PANKAJ BHANDARI
SHUBHA MEHTA

Pet. Counsel

Vedant Agarwal

Mayank Taparia

Res. Counsel

Bharat Vyas

Niti Jain Bhandari

Petitioner / Applicant	PINKY MARBLES
Respondent	DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE & OTHERS
Court	Rajasthan High Court
State	Rajasthan
Date	May 10, 2024
Order No.	D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4297/2024
Citation	2024(5) TAXREPLY 9863
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 75

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 29.09.2023, with a limited prayer that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner in accordance with Section 75 (5) of CGST Act. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the matter was fixed on 29.08.2023 for personal hearing. On that date, on request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.09.2023, thereafter, the matter was adjourned for personal hearing on 27.09.2023. Prior to that date, petitioner had sent a request for adjourning the case to November, 2023 vide letter dated 20.09.2023 which was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023. It is also contended that instead of giving third adjournment, respondent had passed the impugned order on 29.09.2023 under Section 75 (5) of CGST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that third opportunity was given to the petitioner and he did not appear on 27.09.2023, hence, the order was ....