Harpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge by M/s Harpal Singh to GST adjudication and appellate orders arising from proceedings for financial year 2018–19. The petitioner contended that the scrutiny and subsequent demand proceedings were conducted without providing a date, time or venue for a personal hearing, although a written reply had been sought. The appeal filed after the petitioner claimed to have learned of the order was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner relied on Section 75(4) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. The show-cause notice dated 20 October 2023 specified the deadline for a reply but recorded “NA” against the personal-hearing particulars. The State argued that a registered dealer should monitor proceedings and that the appeal had been delayed.
The High Court followed the Division Bench ruling in M/s Anshika Associates v. State of U.P., Writ Tax No. 507 of 2026, decided on 2 April 2026. That decision distinguished the opportunity to submit a written response from the independent statutory entitlement to an oral hearing. A taxpayer’s failure to submit a written reply does not, by itself, extinguish the right to be heard before an adverse order. Finding a procedural violation, the Court set aside the challenged adjudication and appellate orders and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lalitpur, for fresh determination. The State’s counsel stated that a fresh show-cause notice specifying the date, time and venue of hearing would be issued by 24 April 2026. The Court directed that final orders be passed within three months.
The Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the tax demand. The supplied order contains differing dates for certain adjudication and rectification events; those dates are retained as stated in the original judgment rather than silently reconciled.
Cases Discussed
M/s Anshika Associates Through Authorised Representative Mr. Amit Nigam v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Another, Writ Tax No. 507 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, decided 2 April 2026 — followed on the independent requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that is that it happens to be a registered dealer having valid GSTIN No. 09CFEPS4374G2ZI under UPGST Act, 2017. As per the petitioner, scrutiny for the relevant financial year 2018-19 came to be instituted conducted pursuant to the notice being ASMT-10 dated 20.10.2023, according to the petitioner, it was mentioned in the tabulated chart that the reply was to be submitted by 20.11.2023 but in the column pertaining to date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing, and venue where personal hearing will be held ‘NA’ was mentioned. According to the petitioner, a show cause notice appears to have been issued by the proper officer under Section 73 of the Act and the said notices and orders came to be uploaded on the GST portal without serving either on email ID or a registered mobile number of the petitioner. Thereafter on 29.09.2024, an exparte order came to be passed on passed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the Act against which on a gaining knowledge about the same on 26.11.2025, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the responded no. 3 on 26.11.2025 which came to be rejected on 01.12.2025 on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
4. Questioning both the orders, the writ petitioner has been filed the present Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Harpal Singh …..Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others …..Respondent(s) writ petition.
5. This Court entertained the writ petition on 04.02.2026 while seeking response from the respondents.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 sworn by Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Khand-1, Lalitpur dated 21.02.2026 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority cannot be sustained even for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is contended that the procedure so adopted by the original authority in conducting the proceeding is foreign to the statutory provisions as encapsuled under 2017, Act. Submission is that though it is open for the respondent no. 2 to conduct proceedings under Section 73 of the Act but in order to act in a transparent and partial manner, an opportunity is to be accorded and once a show cause notice came to be issued on 20.10.2023 seeking reply by 20.11.2023 then it was incumbent upon the original authority to have fixed the date of hearing, time of hearing and the venue of hearing which as per page 37 is ‘NA’. Submission is that there it happens to be clear cut violation of principles of natural justice. In order to buttress the said submission, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ Tax No. 507 of 2026 (M/s Anshika Associates Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Amit Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and another), decided on 02.04.2026. Further submission is that since the order in question passed by the original authority was under within the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner could know about the said order on 25.11.2025, thus, on 26.11.2025, an appeal came to be preferred which has been rejected in a cursory manner and, thus, the appeal ought to have been decided on merits rather thrown out on day.
8. Countering the submission so made by the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel submits that whatever might be, it is not expected from the petitioner being a registered dealer under the Act to be ignorant about the conduction of the proceedings. Submission is that first of all, the petitioner did not appear before the original authority and secondly, once an order came to be passed, there is a delay in filing the appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
Extract from M/s Anshika Associates:
10. Apparently, proceedings under Section 73 of the Act to be instituted thereafter on 20.10.2023, a show cause notice was issued seeking reply by 20.11.2023, however, from the page-37 of the paper book which happens to be a notice dated 20.10.2023, there is no date mentioned under the column pertaining to the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and the venue of personal hearing. Though an order came to be passed on 29.02.2024 and rectification application came to be preferred which was allowed, however, the appeal so preferred on 26.11.2025 before the appellate authority has been rejected on the ground of delay. The Section 75(4) of the Act itself provides that an opportunity of hearing is to be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Indeed as per the show cause notice dated 20.10.2023 though the reply was to be submitted by 20.11.2023 but the date, time and the venue of personal hearing has not been mentioned. Further it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner had foregone his right to avail opportunity of hearing. In M/s Anshika Associates Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Amit Nigam (supra), the following was observed as under: “1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against any person, here a registered person/petitioner.
2. Undeniably, the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Act, which did intend to call for a reply from the petitioner but the reminder notice did not propose to grant personal hearing as the abbreviation “NA” was specified against the column “date of personal hearing”. In that against the columns meant to specify the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue for personal hearing, the abbreviation “NA” i.e. ‘Not Applicable’ was recorded.
3. In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing.
4. Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However, by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against the petitioner, may be dropped.
5. In other words, the rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.
6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.
7. In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order. In that regard the petitioner may file its final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from date. Thereafter, the petitioner may appear before the assessing authority on the date fixed by the assessing authority, whereafter the assessing authority may pass appropriate reasoned order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.”
11. Further the writ petitioner claims to have received knowledge about the order dated 29.02.2024 on 25.11.2025 and thereafter preferred a rectification application on 05.01.2026, thus, bearing in mind the aforesaid overall fact situation, the orders impugned can not be sustained, accordingly, in the interest of justice, both the orders are to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:
(a). The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Khand-1, Lalitpur, under Section 73 of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as the impugned appellate orders dated 01.12.2025 and 05.01.2026 passed by First Appellate Authority-respondent no. 3, Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Jhansi are set aside.
(b). The matter stands remitted back to respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
(c). At this stage, Shri N.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that a show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioner by 24.04.2026 fixing date, time and venue for personal hearing in that regard.
(d). Since the order has been passed today in the presence of the counsel(s) representing the writ petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State, thus, it would be deemed that the parties have full knowledge about the orders passed today.
(e). The final orders shall be passed within a period of three months from today.
(f). Any observation made hereinabove may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has entered into merits of the matter and the competent authority shall pass orders strictly in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
