Anshika AssociatesVs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Anshika Associates challenging an ex parte GST order dated 5 August 2024 under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Act, 2017, relating to financial year 2019–20. The principal issue was the failure to notify the taxpayer of the next hearing date after the authority did not decide the matter on the date originally fixed. The petitioner submitted that the assessment order had been passed ex parte and that the authority neither pronounced the order on the scheduled hearing date nor served notice of the subsequent date. The Court examined the procedural irregularity in the light of the obligation to conduct tax proceedings fairly. The petitioner relied on the coordinate Bench ruling in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:31108-DB. That decision referred to M/s Videocon D2H Limited and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, (2016) 93 UPTC 237, and M/s Aroma Chemicals v. Union of India and Others, Neutral Citation 2014:AHC:60699-DB.
The Court reiterated that once a hearing date is fixed, the adjudicating authority must either decide the matter on that date or fix another date and communicate it to the taxpayer. Failure to communicate the changed date cannot be used to justify an ex parte order, because such conduct defeats procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. Finding the facts materially similar to Shubham Steel Traders, the High Court set aside the order dated 5 August 2024. It directed the authority concerned to afford the petitioner a personal hearing and thereafter issue a reasoned order in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the substantive GST liability.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another — Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:31108-DB
- M/S Videocon D2H Limited and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors — (2016) 93 UPTC 237
- M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors — Neutral Citation No. 2014:AHC:60699-DB
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019-20.
3. Upon a perusal of the documents, it appears that the order was passed ex parte and was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:31108-DB. The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:-
8. Thus relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in M/S Videocon D2H Limited and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (2016) 93 UPTC 237, M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors Neutral Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand.
……
10. Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 17.06.2024 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 17.06.2024.
11. By not passing the order on 17.06.2024 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct.
5. In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
