M/S Aditi Granite vs. Additional Commissioner Grade -2 And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Aditi Granite, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the assessing authority. The petitioner contended that their appeal was dismissed without a proper hearing, as they failed to supply a reply to a notice issued on 22.09.2025. This dismissal was on the grounds of delay. The petitioner argued that they were not heard and thus could not present a valid defense. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court judgment in a similar case, M/s Shubham Steel Traders Versus State of U.P. and Another, where the court had interfered with an ex parte order due to a violation of natural justice principles.
Held
The Court held that the ex parte order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the assessing authority and the subsequent order dated 04.08.2025 were liable to be quashed. The Court found the facts of the present case to be similar to the precedent case of M/s Shubham Steel Traders. The reasoning was that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing. The Court noted that the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay, which prevented the petitioner from presenting their reply and defense. Therefore, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the assessing authority. The petitioner was directed to submit their reply within four weeks, and upon receipt, the appellate authority was to proceed to pass a final reasoned and speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, especially when the delay in filing a reply is a factor, violates natural justice and warrants setting aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the assessing authority, and the subsequent order dated 04.08.2025, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was ex parte because they were not given an opportunity to be heard. They contended that their appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay without considering their inability to present a defense. They relied on the judgment in M/s Shubham Steel Traders, which emphasized that authorities must provide an opportunity for hearing and communicate any adjourned dates to ensure fairness. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order.
As the petitioner could not supply reply to the notice issued to him on 22.09.2025 his appeal has come to be dismissed without considering this aspect of the matter that petitioner has not been heard in the matter and hence could not set up a valid defense inasmuch as the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical set of facts, in Writ Tax No.2920 of 2025, the Court has interfered with and passed the following order:
"
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chhaya Gautam, Sanyukta Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Aditi Granite .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Grade -2 And Another .....Respondent(s)
Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31108-DB. The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:- "
Thus relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in M/S 93 UPTC 237, M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors Neutral Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand. ......
Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 06.11.2023. 11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct."
In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated April 3, 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of."
In view of the above therefore more especially in the circumstances when the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court finds is more appropriate to remit the matter to the assessing authority to decide afresh after considering the reply of the petitioner. Petitioner is also directed to submit reply to the notice within a period of four weeks from today and the moment respondent-appellate authority receives reply of the petitioner it shall proceed to pass final order giving opportunity of hearing. Needless to add, order to be passed by the assessing authority shall be reasoned and speaking one.
The ex parte order passed by the assessing authority dated 01.02.2025 under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as order of assessing authority dated 04.08.2025 are hereby quashed.
Writ petition succeeds and is allowed as above. September 16, 2025 Deepika (Ajit Kumar,J.) DEEPIKA 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.