Quashed

M/S Swastik Carriers Thru. Proprietor Barkha Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025/1504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an ex parte GST assessment order passed without communicating a new hearing date. Relying on precedent, the Court held that failure to notify the petitioner of adjourned dates violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh personal hearing and reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; direction to grant personal hearing and pass reasoned order.

M/S Swastik Carriers Thru. Proprietor Barkha Agarwal… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1504 of 2025

¶3

M/S Swastik Carriers Thru. Proprietor Barkha Agarwal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manas Shukla, Ashish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

..1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated March 29, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2020-2021.

¶12

Upon a perusal of the documents, it appears that the order was passed ex parte and was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another; Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31108-DB) . The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below :-

¶14

"8. Thus relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in M/S Videocon D2H Limited and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (2016) 93 UPTC 237, M/S Aroma Chemicals Vs. Union of India & Ors Neutral Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand.

¶15

10. Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on

¶16

WTAX No. 1504 of 2025

¶17

¶18

the date fixed on 06.11.2023....

¶19

....11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct."

¶20

In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are quite similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra) , we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

December 12, 2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶23

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Swastik Carriers Thru. Proprietor Barkha Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Swastik Carriers Thru. Proprietor Barkha Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Noor Ul Ain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Sriavastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Indrna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hariom Yadav Vs UOI Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others