M/S Oasys Cybernetics PVT. LTD. Thru. Project Manager vs. State Of U.P. Thru. GST Commissioner Lko. And Another

Heard Smt. Surangama Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 08.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, Sector 12, State GST, Lucknow, for the financial year 2020- 2021. 3. Upon a perusal of the documents, it appears that the order was passed ex parte and was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:31108-DB. The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:- "

Thus relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in M/S Videocon D2H Limited and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (2016) 93 UPTC 237, M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors Neutral Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surangama Sharma, Jagriti Vashisht Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Project Manager .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Gst Commissioner Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)

Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 21.04.2025 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 21.04.2025. 11. By not passing the order on 21.04.2025 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct."

In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated February 08, 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. November 26, 2025 Sachin WTAX No. 1348 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench