M/S Hiran Tobaco Factory Thru. Partner vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner is aggrieved by an ex parte order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act. The order was not passed on the date fixed for hearing, and no notice was given to the petitioner for any subsequent date.
Held
The Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not properly notified of the proceedings. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.
Key Issues
Whether an ex parte order passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1098 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
Heard Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, 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 May 15, 2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, Sector 1, State GST, Unnao, for the financial year 2022-2023. 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 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) : Anuj Singh, Neel Kamal Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Hiran Tobaco Factory Thru. Partner .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. 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 May 15, 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. October 17, 2025 cks/- WTAX No. 1098 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.