M/S Ravi Traders Pahitipur Akbarpur Ambedkarnagar Thru. Proprietor Ram Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others - Allahabad High Court, 25 August 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 799 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "i. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated: 11.05.2022 passed by opposite party No.-3, same is contained as Annexure No.-1 to the writ petition. ii. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding opposite party no.3 to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Ravi Traders, a firm engaged in the business of sale/ purchase of cement and other building materials. The petitioner has availed input tax credit on the strength of tax invoices issued by the supplier and has fulfilled all mandatory condition of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. On 10.12.2020, the respondent no.3 in exercise of his power under Section 74 of the UPGST Act has issued a show cause notice Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Utkarsh Misra, Abhishek Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ravi Traders Pahitipur Akbarpur Ambedkarnagar Thru. Proprietor Ram Prakash Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

alleging that the petitioner has admitted the turnover of supply and also intimated a demand to the tune of Rs.93,986/- under Section 74(5) of the UPGST Act. The petitioner failed to submit his reply to the said show cause notice as the petitioner was unaware of the same. In continuation of the said show cause notice dated 10.12.2020, the petitioner was served a reminder notice on 17.11.2021. The petitioner again could not submit his reply as it was uploaded on the Tab "Additional Notices and Orders" instead of " View Notices and Orders". Without any personal hearing being afforded to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued in Form DRC 07 making a demand of Rs.1,02,899.41/- under Section 74 of the UPGST Act including interest and penalty for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018. Since the demand has been issued without affording opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said demand notice.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court instructions dated 13.08.2025, wherein it has been stated by the Deputy Commissioner that show cause notice was issued and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not submit any reply. Reminders were sent to which also the petitioner did not file any reply. Hence the impugned order has been passed.

It is evident from a perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 10.12.2020 under Section 74 that no date, time and venue of personal hearing was mentioned in the said show cause notice although the date by which reply had to be submitted was mentioned.

We set aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 and direct the respondent no.2 to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within a week from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The show cause notice shall indicate the date of hearing, the time of personal hearing and the place of personal hearing as well. The petitioner shall submit his reply and also attend the personal hearing as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and shall not be given any adjournment. A fresh order be passed by the Deputy Commissioner within twelve weeks thereafter.

This petition stands disposed of. August 25, 2025 Rahul (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench