Ajay Pal, Proprietor vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard Sri Neeraj Yadav, holding brief of Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 16.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 under section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for financial year 2017-2018. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice under section 73 of the GST Act was issued to the petitioner but he could not see the aforesaid notice as well as reminder as it was not posted in the "notices and orders" but the same was posted in "additional notices and orders' in the GST portal, therefore, the petitioner could not file any objection but the impugned order has been passed without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed on the ground of latches.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered with the Division Bench judgement of this Court passed in M/s Ashish Traders vs. State of U.P. and another (Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:173796-DB). He further submits that in the event, notice is not uploaded on "notices and orders" and if it is posted on "additional notices and orders", the view of this Court taken, is clear that the orders have been set-aside and matter is remanded back. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Pal, Proprietor .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

The issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgement of this Court passed in M/s Ashish Traders (Supra), the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal position, therefore, the present writ petition is decided on the same terms as enumerated in the case of M/s Ashish Trader (Supra).

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.

The matter is remanded to the assessing authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to submit its reply within 15 days after receipt of the notice and after submitting the reply within time, the adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. September 15, 2025 Monika WTAX No. 4553 of 2025 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad