Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143384 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2159 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prabir Kumar Bera, Proprietor M/S Agrive Export And Import Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-III, State Goods And Service Tax And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhuti Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 7.8.2024 passed by respondent no. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the normal course of business has sold groundnut seed to another registered buyer M/s Radhe Oil Industries, Rajkot, Gujrat. He submits that the goods were on its onward journey from Culcutta, West Bengal to Rajkot, Gujrat but the same was intercepted at Prayagraj, U.P and on physical verification, no discrepancy was found but an allegation has been made that figure in the e-way bill is different from the tax invoice and further in the tax invoice, there was no signature of the competent person. On the said premise, the goods were seized and penalty was imposed under Section 129 (3) and the order was passed on 19.7.2023. The said order has been challenged in appeal but the appeal has been decided exparte by the impugned order dated 7.8.2024. He further submits that the notice was not duly served as the same was not shown on the assessee's portal under the tab 'view notices and order' rather it was reflected on the other tab 'additional notices and order'. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited Vs. State of UP and others (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:116559:DB. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the notice has been issued and same was reflected under the tab 'Additional Notices and Orders". Copy of the same, has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 (page 32 and 33) of this writ petition. Learned ACSC could not dispute the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited (supra), where the Court has disposed of the writ petition and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority. 8. The Division Bench of Court in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited (supra) has held as under: 7. At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. 9. The present controversy is squarely covered with the decision of this Court in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited (supra). 10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as referred herein above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed. 11. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner shall appear on the date fixed. Thereafter the first appellate authority shall pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad