M/S Sai Travels vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii (Appeal) State Tax Bareilly Zone Bareilly And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127634 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3462 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Sai Travels Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii (Appeal) State Tax Bareilly Zone Bareilly And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhu Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Madhu Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.02.2014, a partnership deed was executed amongst Sri Surendra Singh, Shri Balwant Singh and Smt. Pinki Devi and thereafter, the partnership firm was reconstituted consisting of partners; namely, Harshit Kumar and Bhagwat Saran. He further submits that a notice dated 24.12.2023 under section 73 of the GST Act was issued by the respondent no. 2 with regard to payment of Rs. 7,54,198.32 from 21.04.2019 to 22.12.2023 on the mobile no. 6398940370 belonging to the erstwhile partner, who did not communicate about the show cause notice to the present partners and therefore, the no reply could be submitted and thereafter, vide ex parte order dated 22.04.2024, recovery under section 73(9) of the GST Act was pressed creating a demand of Rs. 8,13,958. 70. When the petitioner came to know about the ex parte order, an application was moved and without any further delay, petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.03.2025 on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without any opportunity to the petitioner. He further submits that in case the appeal is not decided on merit, then doctrine of merger will not be applicable. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in M/s Patel Beej Bhandar Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Writ Tax No. 1299/2024, decided 11.09.2024], New Shanti Restaurant Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ Tax No. 1597/2024, decided on 30.09.2024] and M/s Surya Associates Vs. Union of India & Others [Writ Tax No. 1397/2024, decided on 21.10.2024]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The legal proposition, referred to above, could not be disputed by the learned ACSC. Since the ex parte order has been passed and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the judgements of this Court in M/s Patel Beej Bhandar (supra), New Shanti Restaurant (supra) and M/s Surya Associates (supra). The matter requires reconsideration. For the said purpose, the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. 1are hereby quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, who shall adjudicate the matter after receiving reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter, he shall decide the issue de novo by a reasoned speaking order after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of submission of the reply. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA 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.