Jameel Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76614-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2167 of 2025

Petitioner :- Jameel Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.)

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶6

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') for the period April 2018 to March 2019.

¶7

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act on 28.01.2024 wherein the date of submission of reply and date of personal hearing were indicated as 05.03.2024. The petitioner filed reply on 05.03.2024.The order impugned has been passed on 23.04.2024.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner has filed the reply on 05.03.2024 and order was passed on 23.04.2024, it was incumbent on the respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the said order in terms of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, on failure thereof the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶9

Further submissions have been made that a bare look at the order impugned dated 23.04.2024 would reveal that the same has been passed on speculative basis, wherein the specific case of the petitioner was that 46 invoices were cancelled, the plea of cancellation was not accepted and the total turnover has been

¶10

divided by the admitted tax invoices based on which the turnover of 46 invoices has been ascertained, which is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that 05.03.2024 was fixed for personal hearing as well and the petitioner could have appeared before the authority on the said date and non-appearance on the said date has not been justified.

¶12

Further submissions have been made that the challenge to the order on merits could have been made by way of filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶13

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶14

The show cause notice indicated same dates for filing of the reply and for personal hearing. The reply was filed on 05.03.2024, the date fixed for the purpose. In case the order was passed on the same date by the authority, there was no necessity to provide opportunity of hearing. However, once the authority itself has taken about one and half months in passing the order impugned, it was incumbent on the authority to provide opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the said order, failure thereof is in contravention of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act and consequently, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

¶15

So far as the plea raised pertaining to the merits of the order is concerned, the said aspect will now be raised by the petitioner before the authority.

¶16

Consequently, the petition is allowed . The order dated

¶17

23.04.2024 (Annexure-1) is set aside.

¶18

The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, who is directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 AHA/Sazia

¶20

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jameel Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vimal Kumar Yadav and Another

Bachchuram Ramswaroop Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mak Fitness LLP vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Kasim Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, State Tax SECTOR-13, Ghaziabad

Smt. Rajni Singh vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others