Shubham Steel Traders Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner challenged an order dated 20.11.2023 passed under Section 74(9) of the UPGST Act through FORM GST DRC-07. A notice under Section 74 was issued on 20.05.2023 granting one month for compliance. Since the petitioner contested the proceedings, a notice in DRC-01 was issued on 13.06.2023 granting 15 days to file a reply, though it mistakenly cited Section 74(5) instead of Section 74(1). Despite this error, it is undisputed that the petitioner filed a reply on 26.07.2023. No further action occurred for four months. On 31.10.2023, a reminder notice was issued granting only five days to submit certain documents, with the next date fixed as 06.11.2023. The petitioner appeared on 06.11.2023 and sought time. The State claimed the petitioner did not appear or seek time, but the order itself contains no reference to this. Importantly, no order was passed on 06.11.2023, and no further date was communicated. Instead, the final order was passed on 20.11.2023 without notifying the petitioner of that date.
The petitioner argued that the order was effectively ex-parte, issued in haste, and reflective of a breach of natural justice, given only five days were allowed to comply and no subsequent date was communicated. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions, including Videocon D2H Limited and Aroma Chemicals, to show that such an order is unsustainable. The State argued that an appeal remedy existed and that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice.
