M/S O.P. Packers vs. Superitendent (A.E.) CGST Commissionerate And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s O.P. Packers, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner was aggrieved by a demand-cum-show cause notice dated June 28, 2025, issued by the Superintendent (A.E.), Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar, who is respondent No. 1. The court heard learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent. No specific tax period or amount in dispute was recorded in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the issuance of the impugned notice and the filing of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the demand-cum-show cause notice within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of the reply, the authority concerned must grant the petitioner a personal hearing. The authority is directed to pass a reasoned order, taking into consideration any judgments cited by the parties. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the authority must first decide on the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to decide the matter on merits. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the demand-cum-show cause notice and be heard personally before a final order is passed by the authority concerned, in accordance with principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, implicitly sought an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and present their case before the authority. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or respondent No. 1. However, the court's directions suggest that the revenue would be obligated to provide a personal hearing upon receiving the petitioner's reply.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3850 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand-cum- show cause notice dated June 28, 2025 issued by the Superintendent (A.E.) Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar/respondent No.1. 3. Upon hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties we are of the view that the petitioner should file its reply before the authority concerned within a period of six weeks from date. Once the reply is received by the authority concerned, an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the petitioner before passing of the reasoned order by the authority concerned taking into the consideration the judgements that may be cited by the parties. We make it clear that the authority concerned should decide on the issue of juri iction first before proceeding on merit.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. September 11, 2025 Kuldeep Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Parv Agarwal, Saumitra Singh (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) M/S O.P. Packers .....Petitioner(s) Superitendent (A.E.) Cgst Commissionerate And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) KULDEEP SINGH 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.