Shiv Kishor Construction Private Limited VS Union of India

In the case before the Patna High Court with the reference number CWJC No.17325 of 2021, dated January 12, 2022, Shri Vivek Prasad, the counsel representing the Revenue, has presented a fair argument requesting that the matter be sent back to the authorities for reconsideration. The court has observed certain discrepancies in the proceedings, notably the failure to provide the petitioner with the statutory period to respond to the show cause notice, as well as a technical error acknowledged by the Revenue itself. Consequently, the court finds it necessary to nullify the challenged orders dated January 9, 2021 (referred to as Annexure-5) and January 13, 2021 (referred to as Annexure-6). This decision essentially means that the orders are invalidated, and the matter must be reviewed afresh by the concerned authorities.

In a recent case before the Patna High Court with the case number CWJC No.17325 of 2021, the counsel representing the Revenue, Shri Vivek Prasad, has made a fair request for the matter to be remanded to the authorities for fresh consideration. The court has observed that the petitioner was not provided with the statutory period to show cause, and there was also an acknowledged technical error on the part of the Revenue. As a result, the court has deemed it necessary to quash the impugned orders dated 09.01.2021 (Annexure-5) and 13.01.2021 (Annexure-6). Accordingly, the petition has been disposed of with the additional direction for the petitioner to appear before the relevant authority on 27.01.2022 at 10:30 A.M. Furthermore, the petitioner is instructed to submit all relevant materials supporting their contention within two weeks from the said date.

In the case before the Patna High Court with reference to CWJC No.17325 of 2021, Shri Vivek Prasad, representing the Revenue, acknowledged that the matter should be sent back to the authorities for fresh consideration. The Court observed that the petitioner was not given the statutory period to show cause, and there was also a technical error acknowledged by the Revenue. Consequently, the orders dated 09.01.2021 and 13.01.2021 were deemed necessary to be quashed, and thus ordered accordingly. The petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to appear before the relevant authority on 27.01.2022 at 10:30 A.M. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to present all relevant materials supporting their contention within two weeks from the said appearance date. The petitioner, through their counsel, committed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and agreed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Furthermore, the concerned authority was directed to expedite the decision on the case on its merits, preferably within a period of three months from the petitioner’s appearance date.

In the case of Shri Vivek Prasad, represented by learned counsel for the Revenue, before the Patna High Court in CWJC No.17325 of 2021, the court observed several discrepancies in the proceedings. It was noted that the petitioner was not provided with the statutory period to show cause, and there was a technical error acknowledged by the Revenue. As a result, the court deemed it necessary to quash the impugned orders dated 09.01.2021 and 13.01.2021. The petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to appear before the relevant authority on 27.01.2022 at 10:30 A.M. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to submit all supporting materials within two weeks thereafter and assured cooperation in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The concerned authority was tasked with expeditiously deciding the case on its merits, preferably within three months from the petitioner’s appearance, and to provide a reasoned order, copies of which would be supplied to all parties. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order if necessary.

In the case of Shri Vivek Prasad, represented by learned counsel for the Revenue, the Patna High Court rendered a decision on CWJC No.17325 of 2021 on January 12, 2022. The counsel for the Revenue acknowledged certain deficiencies in the proceedings and suggested a remand to the authorities for a fresh consideration of the matter.

The Court observed that the petitioner had not been given the statutory period to show cause, and there was an admitted technical error by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court deemed it necessary to quash the impugned orders dated January 9, 2021, and January 13, 2021. The petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to appear before the relevant authority on January 27, 2022, at 10:30 A.M.

Furthermore, the petitioner was instructed to submit all relevant materials supporting their contentions within two weeks. The petitioner, through their counsel, committed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The concerned authority was tasked with deciding the case on its merits expeditiously, preferably within three months from the petitioner’s appearance, and was required to provide a reasoned order, copies of which would be supplied to all parties involved. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order if necessary, and all parties were allowed to seek other available legal remedies.

The Court emphasized that any future actions taken by the petitioner or other parties should be addressed promptly and in accordance with the law. No opinion on the merits of the case was expressed, and all issues remained open for further consideration.

Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court suggested conducting proceedings digitally wherever possible.

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of in accordance with the outlined terms.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: