Allowed¶19

M/S India Steels Sales Thru. Proprietor Raish Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Taxes Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2025WTAX/802/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT TAX; Allahabad High Court Lucknow; Pankaj Bhatia; M/s India Steels Sales; State of U.P. taxes; GST Act Section 74; S. 74 GST; SIB survey 13.01.2021; natural justice violation; non-supply of survey report; quashing of assessment orders 16.01.2025 and 25.07.2025; beyond limitation; remand to assessing authority; fresh order; reply and hearing; Uttar Pradesh tax writ petition

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed: both impugned orders dated 16.01.2025 and 25.07.2025 quashed; matter remanded to the assessing authority for a fresh order after supplying the SIB survey report and permitting the petitioner to file a reply and be heard. ¶19

M/S India Steels Sales Thru. Proprietor Raish Bano Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 802 of 2025

¶3

M/S India Steels Sales Thru. Proprietor Raish Bano

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Taxes Lko. And 2 Others	Deptt. Of State .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Mohammad Sufiyan, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶9

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶10

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 16.01.2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 25.07.2025 which was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

¶11

3. While challenging the order dated 16.01.2025, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire case was based upon an SIB survey allegedly conducted on 13.01.2021 - a copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. It is further argued that for invoking the prescriptions contained in Section 74 of GST Act, there was no material to suggest any deliberate concealment with a view to defraud the GST which is a sine qua non for invoking the powers under Section 74.

¶12

4. It is argued that the petitioner in his preliminary reply had subsequently stated that there was no material alleged with regard to commission of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax and a request was made for dropping the notice under Section 74. On the said preliminary submission, the order impugned came to be passed.

¶13

5. The fact remains that the survey conducted on 13.01.2021 was never supplied to the petitioner and the entire order is founded on the said

¶14

WTAX No. 802 of 2025

¶15

¶16

survey report. Thus, finding that prima-facie the orders impugned are in violation of principles of natural justice having not supplied the SIB survey report, the same cannot be sustained, thus, on that ground both the orders dated 16.01.2025 & 25.07.2025 are quashed.

¶17

6. Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶18

7. The SIB survey report shall be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner would be permitted to file a reply. After affording the hearing to the petitioner, the order afresh shall be passed, as directed above.

¶19

8. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.

¶20

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶21

August 27, 2025

¶22

nishant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S India Steels Sales Thru. Proprietor Raish Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Taxes Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S India Steels Sales Thru. Proprietor Raish Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Taxes 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lko. Thru. President (Pradhan), Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Finance, Lko. and Others

Sagar Omnarayan Mishra @ Sagar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home and Another

M/S Ambika Construction Thru. Proprietor Ambika Prasad Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii, Lko and Another

Krishna Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Institutional Finance Deptt., Lko. and Others

Seema Devi Vs Deepak Bharti and Anr.

Mohd. Rais Vs Union Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch Lko. and 2 Others