Case Law Details
Sarthak Earthmovers And Builders Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)
Writ Petition Dismissed Because Assessee Failed to Appear Despite Two Hearing Opportunities; GST Assessment Sustained Because Department Followed Statutory Mode of Communication; Assessment Order Not Set Aside Because Assessee Ignored Validly Served Notices; Challenge to GST Assessment Rejected Because Contact Details of Accountant Were Voluntarily Provided.
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, whereby tax, interest, and penalty aggregating to ₹29,84,975 were imposed for the financial year 2021-22. The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that no opportunity of hearing had been provided before finalization of the assessment and that the provisions of Section 75(4) were mandatory, requiring a hearing before passing the assessment order.
The respondents filed a short counter affidavit stating that a show cause notice had been issued on 20.09.2025 through the common portal and that corresponding communications were automatically sent to the registered e-mail address and mobile number furnished by the petitioner at the time of registration. The notice fixed 20.10.2025 for filing a reply and 27.10.2025 for personal hearing. According to the respondents, the petitioner neither filed any reply nor appeared before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, a reminder notice was issued on 17.11.2025 through the common portal, fixing dates for filing a reply and personal hearing. Despite this reminder, the petitioner again neither appeared nor submitted any response, following which the assessment order was passed on 23.12.2025.
The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the communications sent by the department because the registered e-mail address and mobile number belonged to his accountant. He also contended that the order was passed on 23.12.2025 even though no hearing had been fixed for that date.
The High Court examined the manner of service and observed that the notices had been communicated in accordance with Section 169 of the U.P. GST Act through the registered e-mail address and mobile number provided at the time of registration. The Court noted that it was the assessee’s choice to furnish those contact details and that the department could not be faulted for using them, even if the accountant had subsequently left employment. The Court held that it was the assessee’s responsibility to update any changes in contact information.
The Court further observed that the department had fixed two separate opportunities for filing a reply and personal hearing, but the petitioner failed to participate on either occasion. Addressing the contention that the order was passed on a date not fixed for hearing, the Court held that violation of natural justice is not a straitjacket formula and must be examined on the facts of each case. It emphasized that a person alleging violation of natural justice must also demonstrate prejudice caused by the alleged procedural lapse.
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings despite being duly notified and had failed to demonstrate how he suffered prejudice because the order was passed on a date that had not been separately fixed for hearing. The Court observed that a different situation might have arisen had the petitioner participated in the proceedings and thereafter an uncommunicated date been fixed. Since the petitioner did not appear on any of the opportunities provided, he could not claim prejudice on that basis. Accordingly, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 23.12.2025 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow thereby imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner totaling to Rs. 29,84,975/-.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the present assessment pertains to financial year 2021-22, the petitioner had filed his regular returns through his Accountant and the grievance raised in the present writ petition is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to finalization of the assessment for the financial year 2021-22. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that provisions of Section 75 (4) are mandatory in nature and such an assessment cannot be finalized without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.09.2025 on a common portal and automatically the same message was sent on his registered e-mail address and mobile number provided at the time of registration. In the said show cause notice, 20.10.2025 was the date fixed for filing of the reply and 27.10.2025 was the date fixed for personal hearing.
5. Despite communication of the aforesaid, the petitioner did not file his reply nor did he appear before the Assessing Officer on the date fixed for personal hearing. On 07.10.2025, the petitioner did not appear and therefore a reminder notice was sent on 17.11.2025 on the common portal fixing 14.11.2025 for filing of reply and 18.11.2025 for personal hearing. Despite the reminder being sent to the petitioner, neither did he appear nor did he file his reply and subsequently by means of impugned order dated 23.12.2025, the assessment order was passed.
6. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that he was not aware of the communication made to him by the Assessing Authority on the two occasions, therefore he could not put in appearance. The second ground raised by him is that even as per the versions of the respondent, the date fixed in the present writ for the second time was 14.11.2025 for reply and 18.11.2025 for personal hearing but the authority has passed an order on 23.12.2025 on the date which the hearing was not fixed nor opportunity was given.
7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, we have considered the case of the petitioner. It is noticed that with regard to the opportunity being granted to the petitioner, we find that he was duly communicated the notice in terms of provisions of Section 169 of U.P. G.S.T. Act where there is a clear provision of communicating it through the registered e-mail as well as on the mobile number provided by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive either of these two communications but his case is that the e-mail address and the mobile of the accountant was provided. It is noticed that it is the discretion of the assessee who at the time of registration may provide any e-mail I.D. and phone number of his choice for communication and the petitioner in exercise of his discretion has provided the mobile number and e-mail I.D. of his Accountant. The department cannot be faulted for sending the communications at the registered e-mail and mobile number, even if the Accountant has subsequently left the job inasmuch as it is always a duty of the assessee to intimate any change in I.D, mobile number or e-mail address.
8. The department on its part is under a mandate to communicate to the assessee on the details provided at the time of registration. It is noticed in the present writ petition that two date were fixed for filing of the reply and for personal hearing and the petitioner did not appear either on these two dates.
9. Considering the grounds raised by the petitioner that the matter was never fixed on 23.12.2025 on which the order is passed despite the fact that the guidelines in this regard have been issued by the respondents. It is noticed that violation of principle of natural justice is not a straitjacket formula and has to be considered from case to case basis. Another important aspect that apart from being violation of principle of natural justice, the person has to demonstrate that he has been adversely prejudiced due to not providing opportunity of hearing.
10. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to be unaware of the communication made by the department with regard to hearing in the assessment proceedings under challenge.
11. In the present writ petition, it could not be indicated as to how the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he never participated or appeared as per the notice submitted by the department to him. In case the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and subsequently a date has been fixed on which the order was passed which was never communicated to the petitioner would have certainly have relevant ground for interference as a person has to demonstrate violation of principle of natural justice as well prejudice caused to him. But in the present where the petitioner has not appeared on any date he cannot claim that he was prejudiced because the order was passed on a date which was not fixed in the matter.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground for interference, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Author Bio
