M/S Sarojani Associates vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an GST adjudication order demanding tax. The petitioner argued that the show cause notices were defective, with hearing dates prior to reply submission and insufficient time to respond to a supplementary notice.
Held
The Court found significant defects in the proceedings, including inadequate opportunity for hearing and procedural irregularities. The impugned order was set aside, subject to a deposit by the petitioner, to allow for proper adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the adjudication proceedings afforded the petitioner adequate opportunity of hearing and followed due process. Whether the notices issued were legally valid and served properly.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5137 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 made to the adjudicating order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 raising demand of tax of Rs. 39,48,390/-.
Submission is that the first show cause notice was defective, inasmuch as it fixed the date of hearing for 06.01.2024 which was even prior to the date of filing of reply on 22.01.2024. Second, it has been submitted that during the course of those proceedings supplementary notice was issued on 24.04.2024 proposing additional demand. That notice was beyond limitation. In any case the notice did not provide for adequate opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as the date for final hearing was fixed three days thereafter on 27.04.2024. Further the impugned order came to be passed not on that date but two days thereafter.
As to the delay, it has been explained that the petitioner was not served with copy of that order through physical mode. With respect to the impugned service through online mode, the facts are in dispute, inasmuch petitioner claimed that he did not receive any Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi M/S Sarojani Associates .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
alert while the Revenue claims that the order was served.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Revenue would contend that the order impugned is appealable. Since the petitioner did not file any appeal within the limitation prescribed by law, therefore, no interference may be granted, at this stage.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, in the first place it may be noted that defects do exist in the proceedings. Those are writ large on the face of record. The adjudicating authority may never have fixed a date for hearing prior to the date for filing of the reply. Also the adjudicating authority may have provided wholly inadequate opportunity of hearing to the second notice to the extent that second notice does appear to raise a new issue granting barely three days time to respond to the same as may not be sufficient.
The orders to be passed by the adjudicating authority are expected to be informed with reasons and true to the procedure prescribed by law. The proceedings must be undertaken in right earnest. The adjudication order appears to have been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the noticee. Where notice of date of hearing is not indicated to the petitioner in advance as may allow him to be represented properly, the requirement of rules of natural justice may remain unfulfilled. To the extent such orders create civil liabilities, the requirement of the procedure must be fulfilled in a transparent and realistic manner.
In the circumstances of the case no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending and calling for counter affidavit, at this stage. The petitioner is entitled fair to an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the impugned order is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 4,00,000/- within one month. Subject to such deposit being made the impugned order shall stand set aside and petitioner may furnish reply to the second notice within a further period of one month from the date of deposit.
Thereafter the adjudicating authority may fix a date and communicate the same to the petitioner through regular mode and conclude the proceedings, as expeditiously as possible preferably before 31.03.2026. October 7, 2025 Nadeem (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.