Allied Batteries Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Allied Batteries challenging the assessment order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Barabanki under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute related to the financial year corresponding to the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021. According to the petitioner’s submission, a show cause notice under Section 73 had required the reply to be filed by 09.09.2022, while the date of personal hearing was also fixed for 09.09.2022. The petitioner neither filed a reply nor appeared before the competent authority, following which the proceedings culminated in the impugned assessment order dated 18.02.2025.
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective because the date prescribed for filing the reply and the date fixed for personal hearing were the same. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ Tax No.199 of 2024.
The Court, however, found that the petitioner had offered no cogent explanation for failing to participate in the assessment proceedings despite admittedly receiving the show cause notice. The Court held that, once the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings, he could not claim the benefit of the judgment in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another. The Court further observed that it did not find any statutory bar to fixing the same date for filing the reply and for personal hearing.
The Court also noted that the impugned order had been passed on 18.02.2025 and that the petitioner had furnished no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching the High Court. Finding no ground for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Facts and Proceedings
Allied Batteries challenged the assessment order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Barabanki.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that, with regard to the financial year corresponding to the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021, a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued requiring the petitioner to file its reply by 09.09.2022. The date of personal hearing was also fixed as 09.09.2022.
The petitioner admittedly neither filed the reply nor appeared before the competent authority. Consequently, the proceedings were concluded through the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner’s Submission
The principal ground raised by the petitioner was that the show cause notice itself was defective because the date fixed for filing the reply and the date fixed for personal hearing were identical, i.e., 09.09.2022.
In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ Tax No.199 of 2024.
Allahabad High Court’s Findings
The Court did not find any cogent explanation from the petitioner for not participating in the assessment proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice, which had admittedly been received by the petitioner.
The Court held that once the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the Division Bench judgment in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another.
The Court further observed that it did not find any statutory prescription prohibiting the authority from fixing the same date for filing the reply and for personal hearing.
The Court also found that the impugned order had been passed on 18.02.2025 and that no explanation whatsoever had been furnished by the petitioner for the delay in approaching the High Court.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court found no ground for interference. The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Cases Discussed:
- M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another, Writ Tax No.199 of 2024, Division Bench, Allahabad High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the assessment order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Barabanki
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, with regard to the financial year corresponding to the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021, a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to file his reply by 09.09.2022. The date of personal hearing was also fixed as 09.09.2022. The petitioner neither filed his reply nor appeared before the competent authority. Consequently, the proceedings were concluded by means of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The ground urged by the petitioner is that the show cause notice itself is defective inasmuch as the date fixed for filing the reply as well as the date of personal hearing was the same i.e. 09.09.2022.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No.199 of 2024 “M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another”.
We do not find any cogent explanation offered by the petitioner for not participating in the assessment proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice admittedly received by him.
This Court is of the considered opinion that, once the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings, he cannot claim the benefit of the Division Bench judgment in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. and Another. Apart from this, we do not find any statutory prescription prohibiting the authority from fixing the same date for filing the reply and for personal hearing.
We further find that the impugned order was passed on 18.02.2025 and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court.
Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
