M/S Raja Trading Company Thru. Its Pripriter Mohd. Saif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

"I. issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer State Tax Jurisdiction Lucknow Sector-14 Lucknow (C) Lucknow II Uttar Pradesh i.e., the respondent no. 3, under section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act (Annexure Nos. 3 to the writ petition, respectively) as well as impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal-2nd), State Tax, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh. i.e. respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition respectively). Π. issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant impugned notice and demand order;"

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an ex-parte order was passed and it was not on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgement and order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Writ Tax No.1147 of 2025, the same is quoted hereinbelow:

¶14

"1. Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶15

WTAX No. 1260 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶18

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated August 6, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 201920.

¶19

3. 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.

¶20

4. 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 :-

¶21

"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.

¶22

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 the date fixed on 06.11.2023.

¶23

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."

¶24

5. 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 August 6, 2024 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.

¶25

6. The writ petition is disposed of. "

¶26

WTAX No. 1260 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel is unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment and order 16.10.2025 passed in Writ Tax No.1147 of 2025.

¶29

In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 16.10.2025. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 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.

¶30

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶31

November 19, 2025

¶32

S. Kumar

¶33

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

M/S Raja Trading Company Thru. Its Pripriter Mohd. Saif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Raja Trading Company Thru. Its Pripriter Mohd. Saif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 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

Shachindra Kumar Shukla Vs Smt. Neena Sharma Incharge M.D.U.P.Handlooms Corp.and Anr.

Mahendra Prakash Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway New Delhi and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Sri Shaliendra Singh, Executive Enginer Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sub Division- Fatehpur

Indraveer Singh vs Sri M.P. Agarwal Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Janardan Datta Singh vs Mrs. Kritika Jyotsana Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur

Amrit Lal vs Sri Kuldeep Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Gonda