BharatTaxGST

M/S Shakti Plywood Industries Thru. Proprietor Chandra Prakash Agrawal Gstin 09Accpa6518K1Zn vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others

Original PDF →
WTAX/417/2025HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC02033375202508 May 2025Bench: PANKAJ BHATIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Utkarsh Misra, AbhishekFor Respondent: C.S.C., Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is, taken on record., Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned Standing Counsel for the State., Present petition has been filed challenging the

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26942 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 417 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Shakti Plywood Industries Thru. Proprietor Chandra Prakash Agrawal Gstin 09accpa6518k1zn Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1.

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.06.2022 passed under Section 74 of GST Act as well as the order dated 14.11.2024 whereby the appeal was dismissed in the absence of counsel for the appellant.

4.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire case against the petitioner was based upon SIB report which was never served upon the petitioner. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lari Almira House v. State of U.P. & Ors.; 2023 SCC OnLine All 1880. 5. Assailing the order passed in appeal, he argues that representative of the petitioner had appeared on two occasions, however, on the third date, he could not appear and without giving any further opportunity, the appeal was decided.

6.

Considering the fact that on two occasions counsel for the appellant had appeared, however, he could not appear on the third date, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have fixed another date for hearing. The appellate order also does not consider the effect of non-supply of SIB report which was specifically pleaded before

the appellate authority.

7.

In view thereof, appellate order dated 14.11.2024 cannot be sustained and is quashed.

8.

Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9.

Present petition stands partly allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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.