M/S Afflatus Design Studio vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5134 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard Shri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Arvind Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Archit Gupta, learned counsel for revenue.
Challenge has been raised to the adjudicating order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the U.P. G.S.T Act, 2017 for the tax period 2019-20 whereby demand tax Rs. 74,28,420/- has been raised against the petitioner.
Submission is that the show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 did not specify the date of personal hearing and in any case, the impugned order was passed on 31.08.2024 beyond two months from the date of the reply being furnished. Even in that, the reply furnished by the petitioner has not been considered.
On the other hand learned counsel for revenue would contend that there is gross delay in filing this petition. That has been made met by learned counsel for petitioner on the plea that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled in November, 2019. Therefore, he was not regularly visiting his dashboard/ portal created by the GST Authority. In that circumstance, it remained to be noted by the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed. No other mode of service was adopted by the respondents, to serve the impugned order on the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Deepti Chowdhary M/S Afflatus Design Studio .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
records, in the first place, it may be noted that merit object has been raised which do require consideration. With respect to the delay, the plea being raised also merits consideration. At the same time, even if the petition was to be entertained, and counter affidavit be called, it may only result in final order that may provide for fresh hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this petition pending and calling counter affidavit, at this stage.
In the entirety of facts explained above, the impugned order is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- within one month from today. Subject to such compliance the impugned order shall stand set aside.
Since reply has already been furnished by the petitioner, the adjudicating authority may thereafter fix an appropriate date for personal hearing and communicate the same through regular mode. The petitioner undertakes to participate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment. The adjudicating authority may make best efforts to conclude the proceedings on or before 31.03.2026. 8. The amount to be deposited under this order shall be subject to the final order passed by the adjudicating authority.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of.
October 7, 2025 Nadeem WTAX No. 5134 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) NADEEM 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.