BharatTaxGST

M/S Hindustan Electronics vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Original PDF →
WTAX/5122/2025HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC01519240202506 October 20252 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5122 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue and, Shri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for C.B.I.C. 2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 23.08.2024 passed for tax period 2019-20. 3. Submission is, the order passed was not duly communicated in time that has caused delay. With respect to that defect in the proceedings, it has been submitted, show cause notice dated 29.05.2024 only indicated the date by which reply may be submitted but did not disclose the date of personal hearing. Therefore, it remained from the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed on 23.08.2024 for which there was no notice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would submit, there is considerable delay in filing the present petition. In any case, statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, the power to condone the delay being limited under the GST regime, the petitioner has effectively lost its remedy of appeal for reason of non-communication of the adjudication

order.

5.

While no interference may be warranted on merits in face of statutory Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Niraj Kumar Singh, Vishakha Kshatriya Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi M/S Hindustan Electronics .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

remedy available in view of the defects pointed out in the proceedings both with respect to communication of the adjudication order as also with respect to non-fixation of date for hearing and non-issuance of any further notice of the date on which the adjudication order may be passed, it does appear, the petitioner has been prejudiced.

6.

In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 30,000/- towards disputed demand within a period of one month from today. Petitioner may file its reply within a period of one month therefrom. Within a month from the date of deposit being made, the Adjudication Authority may fix date for personal hearing and shall communicate the same to the petitioner through regular mode. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate and participate in the proceedings without seeking any undue or long adjournment such that the final order may be passed on or before 31.3.2026. 7. Amount deposited in terms of this order shall remain subject to the final order to be passed by the Adjudication Authority.

8.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 7, 2025 Prakhar WTAX No. 5122 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA 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.