Shakti Industries Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Lucknow And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court set aside, insofar as the petitioners in the batch were concerned, the common Adjudication Order dated 25.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 for Financial Years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 (January). The batch comprised writ petitions filed by M/s Shakti Industries, M/s Rv Pumps, M/s Ishan Industries and Vijay Agarwal.
The petitioners submitted that they had been disabled from filing their reply on the Common Portal and, therefore, communications between the parties had taken place through e-mail. In that context, the petitioner asserted that a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025, together with supporting documents, had been sent on 06.03.2026 to the e-mail address provided by the Adjudicating Authority. However, while passing the impugned order dated 25.03.2026, the Adjudicating Authority recorded that no written submissions/reply had been filed by the petitioner firm and the other three firms even till 09.03.2026.
The High Court noted that a specific response had earlier been sought from Revenue to paragraph 18 of the writ petition containing the above assertion. When queried, learned counsel for Revenue stated that he had not received any clear-cut denial of the facts stated in paragraph 18. In these circumstances, the Court considered that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petitions pending or calling for a counter affidavit at that stage.
The High Court held that once the reply may have been filed by the petitioner and sent to the Adjudicating Authority on the e-mail provided by that authority, the Adjudicating Authority remained obligated to consider it. The Court held that non-consideration of such reply clearly established violation of the principle of natural justice. Treating this as a fundamental procedural defect in the adjudication proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 only in respect of the petitioners involved in the batch.
The Adjudicating Authority was directed to fix a fresh date in the proceedings with at least 15 days’ advance notice. The petitioners undertook to cooperate and not seek any undue or long adjournment. After hearing the petitioners, the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to pass a final order, only with respect to the present set of petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Shri Yash Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, leaned counsel for the revenue.
2. These writ petitions have been filed against the common Adjudication Order dated 25.03.2026 passed by respondent no. 3. under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with U.P. GST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 for Financial Year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 (January).
3. Submission is since the petitioner had been disabled from filing reply on the Common Portal, accordingly, all communications between the parties were made through e-mail. In that context, it has been strenuously urged by the petitioner that it had submitted a detailed reply through e-mail sent to [email protected].
4. Though, some instructions were received on the last date, Shri Awasthi informed that written instructions were awaited. Specific reply to contents of paragraph 18 of the writ petition was sought. For ready reference, contents of paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition reads as below:-
“18. That in all humility it is submitted that the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the respondent no. 3 is wholly illegal as the same is based upon perverse finding. It is submitted that in response to the Show Cause notice dated 24.09.2025, the petitioner filed a detailed reply along- with other supporting documents, through e-mail on 06.03.2026 on the email id so provided by the respondent no. 3 i.e. [email protected].
However, while passing the impugned order, respondent no. 3 has returned a finding that no written submissions/reply has been filed by the petitioner firm and three other firms, even till 09.03.2026 (paragraph no. 13.11 internal page no. 180).”
5. Today, on being queried, learned counsel for the revenue states that he has not received any clear cut denial of the facts stated in paragraph 18 of the writ petition.
6. In view of that status / proceedings, no useful purpose may be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage. Once, reply may have been filed by the petitioner and sent to the Adjudicating Authority on e-mail provided by the Adjudicating Authority it remained obligated to consider the same. Non consideration of such reply clearly establishes violation of principle of natural justice.
8. For reasons of fundamental procedural defect noted in the proceedings, impugned order dated 25.03.2026, is set aside only for the petitioners (involved in this batch of petitions). The petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i). The Adjudicating Authority shall fix a fresh date in the proceedings with at least 15 days advance notice.
(ii). Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment.
(iii). Upon hearing the petitioners, final order may be passed (only with respect to the present set of petitioners), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.
