M/S Ajaz Int Udyog Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And Another

Heard Shri Devanand Pandey, 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 March 25, 2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2021-2022. 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) : Devanand Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ajaz Int Udyog Thru. Authorized Signatory .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)

Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 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 06.11.2023. 11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 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 March 25, 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 14, 2025 Ashutosh WTAX No. 1228 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench