Chauchan Brick Works Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The court’s intolerance for “non-speaking orders” that ignore jurisdictional challenges. By setting aside the adjudication order, the High Court has reinforced that tax authorities cannot simply dismiss legal objections-especially those regarding limitation and jurisdiction—with “subjective conclusions”
The Allahabad High Court considered a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 19.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. It was argued that the mandatory conditions for invoking Section 74 were not satisfied and that the show cause notice issued on 20.09.2025 for the tax period 2019–20 was beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner also raised objections on merits and asserted that, being under the compounding scheme, proceedings under Section 74 could not be initiated.
The Court observed that these objections relating to jurisdiction and limitation had been raised before the adjudicating authority. However, upon examining the impugned order, it found that no cogent reasons had been provided for rejecting those objections. Although the objections were reproduced in detail, the authority recorded only a subjective conclusion without proper reasoning.
Considering that this defect was apparent on the face of the record, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending or seeking a counter affidavit. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the objections on their merits and to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing.
