M/S Gopi Rishikul Agencies Work vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Gopi Rishikul Agencies Work, is aggrieved by an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj, which created a demand under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice uploaded on the portal for the financial year 2020-21 did not contain an attachment. Upon obtaining a manual copy, the petitioner filed an application on 05.02.2025 seeking an adjournment until 10.02.2025 to file a reply. However, the petitioner found that an ex parte order had already been passed on 19.02.2025 before the reply could be filed on 25.02.2025. The petitioner argues that the authority did not respond to the adjournment request or fix a further hearing date, leading to an unjustified ex parte order.
Held
The Court held that the action of the respondents was in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. The Court noted that the communication received by the petitioner on the portal did not contain the attachment, and the show cause notice was manually supplied. The petitioner then sought an adjournment to file a reply. Crucially, the adjournment application was neither rejected nor was the petitioner informed of a next date of hearing. The Court found that the order dated 19.02.2025 was passed without adhering to the requirement of fixing a date for personal hearing after considering the adjournment application, as mandated by Section 75(4). Therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained. The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 19.02.2025 and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks, after which an opportunity of hearing would be provided, and a fresh order would be passed in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj, is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's contention that the show cause notice lacked an attachment and an adjournment application was filed but not addressed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice uploaded on the portal was incomplete as it lacked an attachment. Furthermore, after filing an application for adjournment on 05.02.2025 seeking time until 10.02.2025, the authority neither rejected the application nor communicated a further date for personal hearing. This failure to provide an opportunity for hearing resulted in an unjustified ex parte order, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner had sought time until 10.02.2025 to file a reply, and the non-filing of the reply by the stipulated date justified the passing of an ex parte order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81519-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2007 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Gopi Rishikul Agencies Work Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Kesarwani, Shubhanjali Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj whereby demand has been created under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act').
Submissions have been made that though the notice with regard to Financial Year 2020-21 was purportedly uploaded by the Department on the portal, the same was not containing the attachment. The petitioner on becoming aware of the issuance of notice, approached the respondents and obtained copy of the notice and as the petitioner required more time to file response, an application was filed by the petitioner on 05.02.2025 seeking time till 10.02.2025 to file the reply. However, the reply could not be filed by 10.02.2025 and when the same was prepared on 25.02.2025, the petitioner accessed the portal and he found that the order had already been passed on 19.02.2025. 3. Submissions have been made that besides the fact that notice issued to the petitioner did not contain the attachment, when application was moved seeking adjournment, no response was given/no further date for personal hearing was fixed by the Authority and the ex parte order has been passed, which is not justified.
Counsel for the respondents attempted to make submissions that the petitioner had sought time till 10.02.2025, the reply should have been filed by the said date and non-filing of the reply has resulted in passing of the ex parte order which cannot be faulted.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Apparently, the communication received by the petitioner on the portal did not contain the attachment, the show cause notice was manually supplied to the petitioner, to which he wanted to file reply and sought adjournment. Admittedly, the adjournment application was neither rejected nor the petitioner was communicated the next date of hearing and the order dated 19.02.2025 has been passed.
The action of the respondents, apparently, is in violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act wherein the Authority, in view of the application made, should have fixed a date for personal hearing before passing the final order. In violation thereof, the order impugned dated 19.02.2025 cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.02.2025 is quashed and set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj before whom the petitioner would now file a reply within a period of two weeks, whereafter he would be provided opportunity of hearing and order would be passed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 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.