M/S Suchit Traders Thru. Proprietor Naresh Kumar Sahu vs. Deputy Commissioner State GST Khand No.3 Lucknow U.P.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Suchit Traders, through its Proprietor Naresh Kumar Sahu, filed a writ petition challenging a final assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Khand No. 3, Lucknow. The petitioner's primary contention was that an employee deputed to monitor the GST portal for notices failed to inform the petitioner about a show cause notice. Consequently, the petitioner could not respond to the notice, leading to the ex-parte final assessment order. The petitioner did not press any other grounds before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's sole ground, which was the failure of their employee to inform them about the show cause notice, is not a sufficient reason to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found this to be an inadequate justification for challenging the assessment order. As no other grounds were pressed by the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the impugned assessment order by filing an appeal, provided such an appeal is legally permissible. The Court did not decide on any other potential issues related to the assessment order itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the failure of an employee to inform the petitioner about a show cause notice issued by the GST Department constitutes a valid ground for challenging a final assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the negligence of their employee in not relaying information about the show cause notice, they were unable to respond, which resulted in an adverse final assessment order. They implicitly sought relief from the High Court on this basis. Revenue's Argument: The State did not present any specific arguments as the Court dismissed the petition on the petitioner's own stated ground. However, the Court's reasoning implies that such a ground is not tenable for a writ petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44695-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 689 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Suchit Traders Thru. Proprietor Naresh Kumar Sahu Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner State Gst Khand No.3 Lucknow U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Upadhyay,Pranvesh Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The contention of the petitioner is that the employee who was deputed to keep track of any notice which may have been issued by the GST Department as and when it gets reflected on the concerned portal, but, the employee did not inform the petitioner, therefore, he could not respond to the show cause notice resulting in the final assessment order.
This is hardly a ground for acceptance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As no other grounds have been pressed the writ petition is dismissed with liberty however to challenge the impugned assessment order in appeal if otherwise permissible in law. . (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 1.8.2025 R.K.P.
Digit
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.