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 — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

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 — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The order in appeal dated 24.07.2025 is set aside and the matter is restored to the Board of the appellate authority to decide the appeal fresh, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal of the petitioner was decided without affording any adequate opportunity, on a date when none of the parties were represented, contrary to the principles of natural justice. +1 more

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 afresh in accordance with law.

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 an order.

Key takeaways

By not indicating any reason, the order in appeal dated 24.07.2025 is non-speaking and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and accordingly it is set aside.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT TAX No. 1235 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 6), decided November 6, 2025 by Jaspreet Singh, J.: petitioner M/S Star Builders (prop. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Khan) alleged that its appeal was decided on 24.07.2025 by respondent No.2 (earlier decision 24.04.2024 by respondent No.3) without adequate opportunity, when none of the parties appeared, and by a cursory non-reasoned order merely reproducing the grounds of appeal. The Court held that every judicial or quasi-judicial order must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including giving reasons (relying on Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. vs Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431), that the non-speaking order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and accordingly set aside the appeal order dated 24.07.2025, restoring the matter to the Board of the appellate authority to decide it fresh after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing; the petition stands allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT TAX No. - 1235 of 2025

M/S Star Builders Thru. Proprietor Mr.Iqbal Ahmad Khan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others

Registration Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Kumar Shukla, Rakesh K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

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

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 24.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and 24.04.2024 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.

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.

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.

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 24.07.2025.

WTAX No. 1235 of 2025

2

The order indicates that none had put in appearance either for the assessee 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.

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].

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 24.07.2025 is set aside.

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.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed .

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

November 6, 2025

Asheesh

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