M/S Indpe vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s INDPE, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging a notice dated 31.01.2025 issued under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent is the State of U.P. and another. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted instructions indicating that an order under Section 74(9) of the Act had been passed on 23.04.2025 after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and receiving a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner had not challenged this subsequent order.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, is not maintainable when a final order has subsequently been passed by the Competent Authority under Section 74(9) of the Act, and the petitioner has not challenged this final order. The reasoning was that the issuance of the show cause notice was followed by a reply from the petitioner and a subsequent final order. Therefore, questioning only the show cause notice without challenging the final order rendered by the Competent Authority was considered unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that a challenge should be directed against the final adverse order, not merely the preliminary notice, especially when the process has culminated in a final decision after due opportunity.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, is maintainable when a final order has subsequently been passed by the Competent Authority under Section 74(9) of the Act, and this final order has not been challenged by the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, by filing the writ petition, it is implied they sought to challenge the validity or process initiated by the show cause notice. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that once a final order has been passed under Section 74(9) after the petitioner had an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, the challenge to the show cause notice alone is not maintainable. They relied on the procedural progression from notice to final order.