M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025WTAX/1189/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Tax; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WTAX No. 1189 of 2025; Ammar Enterprises; Mohd. Ammar; Sitapur; State of U.P.; State Tax; appellate order set aside; non-speaking order; unreasoned order; grounds of appeal reproduced; cursory order; decided in absence of parties; no representation; natural justice; opportunity of hearing; Article 14; reasoned order; speaking order; Cyril Lasrado (2004) 7 SCC 431; restoration to appellate authority; fresh decision; 22.07.2025; 25.10.2024; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order in appeal dated 22.07.2025 set aside and the matter restored to the appellate authority to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ¶¶21

M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; order in appeal dated 22.07.2025 set aside and the matter restored to the appellate authority to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appeal was validly decided without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, on a date when, per the order itself, none of the parties were represented. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the appellate authority, which shall, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, decide the appeal fresh in accordance with law.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Any order, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, must comply with the basic postulates of adherence to the principles of natural justice, which includes giving reasons for the order; in the instant case that requirement is missing.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

It could not be disputed that there is no reason whatsoever indicated in the impugned order except reproducing the grounds of appeal.ratio¶¶17
By not indicating any reason, the order in appeal dated 22.07.2025 being non-speaking is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and accordingly it is set aside.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Writ Tax No. 1189 of 2025, decided November 6, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh, J.). The Court set aside the appellate order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 deciding the petitioner's appeal, because it was a non-speaking order recording no reasons — merely reproducing the grounds of appeal — and was passed on a date when, per the order itself, neither the assessee nor the revenue was represented. The absence of reasons was held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and of the principles of natural justice, relying on Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431. The matter was restored to the appellate authority to decide the appeal fresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Petition allowed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1189 of 2025

¶3

M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Singh, Deepak Kumar Pandey, Sachin Kumar, Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-Revenue.

¶11

The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal of the petitioner has been decided by means of the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and 25.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 without affording any adequate opportunity coupled with the fact that on the said date as per the order itself, none of the parties were represented and yet the appeal has been decided on merits in absence of the respective parties.

¶12

It has also been urged that from a perusal of the order in appeal, it would indicate that it does not reflect any reason and merely the grounds of appeal have been reproduced and by a cursory order the appeal has been decided which apparently is a non reasoned and non speaking order.

¶13

Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing for the StateRevenue while refuting aforesaid submissions has pointed out that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner which were not availed and apparently, in absence thereof, now the petitioner does not have a right to urge that opportunity has not been provided. In the aforesaid circumstance, the petition be dismissed.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it indicates that several dates were fixed, however, what could not be disputed by the counsel for the revenue that on the date when the appeal is said to have been heard and decided i.e 22.07.2025. The order indicates that none had put in appearance either for the assessee

¶15

WTAX No. 1189 of 2025

¶16

¶17

or the revenue. It also could not be disputed that there is no reason whatsoever indicated in the impugned order except reproducing the grounds of appeal.

¶18

Be that as it may, it is now too well settled to be disputed that any order whether judicial or quasi judicial must comply with the basic postulates of adherence to the principles of natural justice which includes giving reasons for an order which apparently in the instant case is missing. [See: Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431].

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that by not indicating any reason in the order the same being non speaking is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly, the order in appeal dated 22.07.2025 is set aside.

¶20

The matter shall stand restored on the Board of the appellate authority who shall after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall decide the same fresh in accordance with law.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed .

¶22

November 6, 2025 Asheesh

¶23

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶24

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

M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ammar Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Ammar, Sitapur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., State Tax, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amar Chandra Vs Ashish Kumar Pathak and Ors.

Amit Mishra Vs Sanjeev Agarwal

Noor Ul Islam Vs Smt. Neelam Singh

Ram Surat and 4 Others vs Ayodhya Prasad and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

M/S Star Builders Thru. Proprietor Mr.Iqbal Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others