1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Ghildyal alongwith Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and to quash the impugned proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the UPGST Act and impugned notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

II. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).”

3. Upon fresh hearing held on 27.10.2021, we had passed the below quoted order on the basis of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner :

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in respondent no. 2 as the proper authority in the case of the present petitioner was the Central GST Authority.

Besides the above, reliance has already been placed on Rule 142 (1A) and Rule 142 (2A) to submit that the mandatory opportunity contemplated by the Rule has been denied to the writ petitioner inasmuch as the preliminary notice was not followed by a proper notice seeking initiation of adjudication. Third, it has been submitted that due objection could not be raised by the petitioner within time as the sole proprietor of the petitioner entity is a senior citizen who has been advised to take precaution during the spread of pandemic COVID-19.

Shri Manu Ghildyal and Shri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents may obtain written instructions as to the above noted facts.

Put up on 02.11.2021 as fresh.”

4. Today, upon revisiting his position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, infact the notice dated 08.01.2021 is a preliminary notice inasmuch that notice was issued under Section 74(5) of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The fact that the petitioner did not or could not submit its reply within the time granted, did not absolve the respondent authority from issuing a proper notice under Section 74(1) of the Act and to proceed with the adjudication proceedings, in accordance with law.

5. Without issuing any further notice, the demand order has been passed on 18.02.2021. It reads as below:

“You were issued DRC-01 for dated 08.02.2021 but you failed to appear and put your case before me. Therefore, I have no other option but to issue Order (DRC-07).”

6. Though the aforesaid order is appealable, we do find, a patent error has crept in the impugned order inasmuch as no adjudication notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner before passing the order dated 18.02.2021. That being an undisputed fact, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy, at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 18.02.2021 is set aside. It is provided that that the petitioner may treat the order dated 18.02.2021 as the final notice issued to it under Section 74(1) of the Act and submit its reply within four weeks from today. Thereafter, all proceedings may be concluded strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.