M/S Shelindra Kumar Chaturvedi Cons vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an Adjudication Order under Section 74 of the GST Act, alleging no show cause notice was issued, no personal hearing was granted, and the service of the order was doubtful. The Court noted widespread issues with online service of notices and orders.
Held
The Court set aside the Adjudication Order due to violations of natural justice, specifically the lack of a show cause notice and opportunity for a hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the Adjudication Order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by not issuing a show cause notice and not providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5071 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Adjudication Order dated 19.03.2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act passed by respondent no.2 creating a demand of tax of Rs.19, 81,316/- for the FY 2018-19. 3. Submission is, no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order being passed and in any case, no date of filing of reply or personal hearing was communicated to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. Also, the date of service of the adjudication order has been doubted. Pleadings to that effect exist.
In many similar matters arising from same/similar mistakes committed by the Adjudicating Authorities, we have been setting aside such orders, conditionally. Hundreds, if not thousands of petitions have arisen, on same or similar grounds, clearly indicating to the Court, widespread difficulties being faced by numerous registered persons.
Primarily, it is being noted, show cause notices and adjudication orders are being served only through online mode. In that, many times alerts are not being sent to the noticees and in any case the notices and orders are often not readily visible on the GSTN Portal. Further, it has been noted, besides Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwini Kumar, Nitin Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shelindra Kumar Chaturvedi Cons .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
rigid/fixed period of limitation with limited power to condone the delay, the Appeal Authorities do not have the power to set aside/remand the Another, Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:38820-DB, a coordinate bench took note of similar and other violations of rules of natural justice, by Adjudicating Authorities and thus set aside the Adjudication Order.
Again in another order passed by a coordinate bench in M/S Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No2024: AHC:31108-DB, it has been observed as below:
"
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 view of our consistent view in similar matters, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit, at this stage.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month from today. Present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Subject to the above deposit being made by the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority shall make available to the petitioner copy of the show cause notice together with any additional/supplementary notice etc issued in these proceedings together with copies of Relied Upon Documents ('RUDs' in short) within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.
(ii) Petitioner shall file reply, if any, within a further period of four weeks therefrom.
(iii) Thereupon the respondent No. 2 shall fix appropriate date for hearing and communicate the same to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law with at least two weeks' advance notice.
(iv) Petitioner undertakes to cooperate and participate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment.
It is expected that the proceedings thus remitted would be concluded within six months from the date the petitioner makes first compliance under this order and deposits the amount specified above. October 10, 2025 Faraz (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.