[2025:RJ-JP:36199-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10214/2025 M/s Vardhani Motors, Having Its Office At Near Court Building, Bassi, Jaipur-303301 (Raj) Through Its Proprietor Mahesh Kumar Vardhani ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, State Tax, Ward-1, Circle-E, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur (Raj) 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302005 3. Union Of India, Through Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Totuka with Mr. Vijay Singhal For Respondent Nos.1 and 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Jaivardhan Joshi Mr. C.S. Sinha HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/09/2025 1. On 07th August 2025, respondents’ counsel took time to go through judgments passed by various Court. On 20th August 2025 again, the matter was stood over. No reply is filed. 2. There is an averment in the petition that the adjudication order dated 11th December 2023 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing in an ex parte manner violating the principles of natural justice. There is no reply filed denying the [2025:RJ-JP:36199-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-10214/2025] statement though, petition was served over a month ago on respondents. Even the impugned notice dated 22nd August 2023 does not mention anywhere that a notice of personal hearing was given. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that no submission was made by taxpayer so it is clear that dealer has nothing to say or accepted the point raised in show cause notice. Moreover, it is averred in the petition that even show cause notice was not served, but was only uploaded in the portal and, therefore, it is not proper service. There is no denial to this averment. Moreover, no assessee can be expected to keep watching the portal everyday and the department ought to have served notice on assessee. 3. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order has been passed without giving notice and also without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the order is against the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the bank shall forthwith allow petitioner to operate the bank account. Consequently, the order passed in the appeal dated 11th June 2025 also shall not survive. Department may initiate fresh proceedings. 4. In view of the above, Mr. Ankit Totuka, counsel for petitioner states he shall file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Thereafter, Adjudicating Authority may proceed to adjudicate show cause notice and before passing an order shall give petitioner a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated at least five working days in advance. If the Adjudicating Authority is going to rely on any judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal, a list thereof shall also made available with [2025:RJ-JP:36199-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-10214/2025] the notice for personal hearing so that assessee will be able to deal with/distinguish the same. If it is an unreported order, a copy of the same shall be made available with the notice for personal hearing. 5. All rights and contentions of parties are kept open. 6. Petition disposed. 7. We clarify we have not given any observations on the merits of the case. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/32