Case Law Details
Anshuman Singh Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of Anshuman Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated November 25, 2024. The petitioner, represented by counsel Shubham Agrawal, argued that the Appellate Authority’s order was in gross violation of natural justice principles. Specifically, the order incorrectly stated that the petitioner neither responded to a notice nor requested an adjournment. Contrary to this finding, the petitioner had filed an adjournment application on October 28, 2024, seeking additional time, as evidenced by documents available on the GST portal. The learned Standing Counsel for the State conceded that there appeared to be an error in the Appellate Authority’s judgment based on the records presented.
Considering the apparent error, the High Court quashed the Appellate Authority’s order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority by January 2, 2025, to present their response. The Appellate Authority was instructed to provide a hearing date within two weeks and to resolve the matter within one month thereafter. The High Court emphasized that the new order should be reasoned and clearly articulated, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring procedural fairness and safeguarding the rights of individuals in administrative proceedings. It underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping and fair adjudication in tax-related disputes under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 25.11.2024 on the ground that the order has come to be passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, wrong fact has come to be recorded in the finding part of the order to the effect that petitioner neither responded to the notice, nor moved any adjournment to it.
3. It is contended that while the petitioner received notice about the hearing of the matter by the Appellate Authority dated 10.10.2024 in which 29.10.2024 was date fixed for personal hearing before the Appellate Authority and as was also reflected on the GST portal, which has been brought on record at page 49 and in response to that petitioner had already moved an adjournment application on 28.10.2024 which is also reflected on the GST portal.
4. It is further submitted that GST portal carries the application of the petitioner titled ‘subject adjournment’ seeking 10 days’ time. Document to this effect has been brought on record and annexed at pages 49 and 50 of the paper book.
5. On a pointed query being made as to the finding returned by the Appellate Authority that petitioner neither responded to notice, nor he moved any adjournment, learned Standing Counsel very fairly conceded that looking to the documents brought on record, there seems to be an apparent error on the face of the judgment and in these circumstances, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority for deciding it afresh.
6. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed.
7. The order of Appellate Authority dated 25.11.2024 in an appeal arising out of order of the Assessing Authority dated 03.2024, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to Appellate Authority for decision afresh.
8. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on or before 02.01.2025 to furnish reply whatever it wants and, thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall fix a date within a fortnight for hearing to be accorded to the petitioner and shall thereafter dispose of the matter within the next one month time.
9. Needless to add the order to be passed, shall be reasoned and speaking one.
Author Bio
