M/S Hindustan Brick Field vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Hindustan Brick Field, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 09.11.2024 and an ex parte demand order dated 21.02.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Pilibhit Sector-2, Bareilly (B). These actions were taken under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the impugned order did not comply with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, citing a previous judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. The respondent authorities attempted to support the order but did not dispute that the issue was covered by the cited precedent. The ex parte order in the present case, similar to the one in the precedent, allegedly lacked reasoning and incorporated the show cause notice by reference.
Held
The Court held that the ex parte demand order dated 21.02.2025 was unsustainable because it did not contain any reasoning and merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference. This failure to provide a reasoned basis for the decision contravened the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that even if no response was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the proper officer to pass an order that was self-contained and set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., which established that a lack of detailed reasoning and reliance solely on previous notices renders an order non-compliant with Section 75(6). Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the respondent No. 2 for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice and a subsequent opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte demand order dated 21.02.2025, issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned order, like the one in the precedent case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport, failed to set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision as mandated by Section 75(6). The petitioner contended that merely referencing previous notices, even if no response was filed, does not make the final order self-contained or compliant with statutory requirements. The petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. to support their claim. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh and another, attempted to support the impugned order but did not dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(6), Section 61, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89524-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2375 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Hindustan Brick Field Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Dheeraj Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This writ petition is directed against show cause notice dated 09.11.2024 and the ex parte demand order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Pilibhit Sector-2, Bareilly (B) under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2021-22. 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 21.02.2025 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 21.02.2025 (Annexures- 6 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 74 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 :- 26.5.2025 Mukesh Pal/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) MUKESH PAL 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.