M/S Ajay Bahadur Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ajay Bahadur Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Commercial/State Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector-19, Varanasi, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to comply with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which mandates that the proper officer's order must set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Court in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. The impugned order, similar to the one in the cited case, allegedly incorporated the show cause notice by reference without providing independent reasoning.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Commercial/State Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector-19, Varanasi, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was unsustainable. The Court found that the order, like the one in the precedent case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. This section mandates that the proper officer, in their order, must set out the relevant facts and the basis of their decision. The Court noted that the impugned order merely incorporated the show cause notice by reference and did not contain any independent reasoning or set out the factual basis for its decision. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 22.08.2024. The matter was remanded back to respondent no.4, who was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act within four weeks. Subsequently, after providing an opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with the law was to be passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the Commercial/State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Section 75(6) of the Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from the same defect as the order in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., specifically that it fails to set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision as required by Section 75(6) of the Act. The order merely incorporated the show cause notice by reference and lacked independent reasoning, rendering it unsustainable. Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents 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 (supra).
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80118-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2280 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Ajay Bahadur Singh Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vardhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Commercial/ State Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector-19, Varanasi under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 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 order dated 22.08.2024 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 order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.4, 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 :- 15.5.2025 RK/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR 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.