M/S Mahavir Prasad vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5202 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra along with Prateek Dawar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for CGST, Shri Soumitra Sen, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Adjudication Order dated 13.01.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act passed by respondent no.2 creating a demand of tax of Rs.4,30,91,885/- for the FY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. 3. Submission is, no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order being passed and in any case, no date of filing of reply or personal hearing was communicated to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. Also, the date of service of the adjudication order has been doubted. Pleadings to that effect exist. 4. In many similar matters arising from same/similar mistakes committed by the Adjudicating Authorities, we have been setting aside such orders, conditionally. Hundreds, if not thousands of petitions have arisen, on same or similar grounds, clearly indicating to the Court, widespread difficulties being faced by numerous registered persons. 5. Primarily, it is being noted, show cause notices and adjudication orders are being served only through online mode. In that, many times alerts are not being sent to the noticees and in any case the notices and orders are often not readily visible on the GSTN Portal. Further, it has been noted, besides rigid/fixed period of limitation with limited power to condone the delay, the Appeal Authorities do not have the power to set aside/remand the proceedings, to the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, many times the right of appeal is lost to the aggrieved assessees, for reason of late service of Adjudication Order. Even, if the Appeal Authorities were to pass an order on merits, it would still take away one opportunity of hearing that is otherwise available to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishant Mishra, Prateek Dawar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi M/S Mahavir Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) noticee, to represent its case, under the scheme of the Act. 6. While there may be some merit in the objection being raised by the petitioner, that facts are otherwise, in the first place a coordinate bench in Mahaveer Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax And Another, Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:38820-DB, a coordinate bench took note of similar and other violations of rules of natural justice, by Adjudicating Authorities and thus set aside the