M/S Rudraksh C S vs. State Of U.P And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rudraksh C S, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated May 18, 2024, and an ex parte demand order dated August 20, 2024. These were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Sector-2, Gautam Budhh Nagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to meet the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. The respondent's counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by a prior judgment of the Court in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.
Held
The Court held that the ex parte demand order dated August 20, 2024, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Similar to the precedent set in M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra), the order in the present case did not set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. It merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference, rendering it unsustainable. The Court reasoned that even if no response was filed to the show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the proper officer to pass a self-contained order that clearly states the relevant facts and the basis for the decision, rather than simply referring to previous notices. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the ex parte order dated August 20, 2024. The matter was remanded back to the respondent No.2, who was directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice within four weeks. Thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law was to be passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte demand order dated August 20, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, is in compliance with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that the proper officer shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in his order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order does not fulfill the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, as it merely makes reference to the show cause notice by incorporation and lacks any independent reasoning or basis for its decision. Therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded back. Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned but did not dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93768-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2702 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Rudraksh C S Respondent :- State of U.P and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Dheeraj Dwivedi, Priyanshu Kesarwani, Amit Kumar Yadav, Srikant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (SC) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
This writ petition is directed against show cause notice dated 18.05.2024 and ex parte demand order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Sector-2, Gautam Budhh Nagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2019-20. 2. Learned counsel with reference to judgment in M/s Hari U.P. : Writ Tax No.606 of 2025, decided on 11.03.2025, made submissions that the order impugned does not fulfill the requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned, however, does not dispute that the issue as raised is covered by the judgment in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra).
In the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra), this Court, after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:-
"
A bare look at the order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Act reveals that the same only makes reference to issuance of two notices, the fact that they have not been responded to, and a demand has been raised.
The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024. Even if no response was filed to the notices issued under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to pass an order in compliance of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act, as a final order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notices while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2/Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed."
Admittedly, in the present case, the ex parte order dated 20.08.2024 also does not contain any reason and only the indication made in the show cause notice has been incorporated by reference and, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The ex parte order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2, who shall provide an opportunity of filing
response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today and, thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 AHA/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI 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.