M/S Bajrang Trading Company vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49685-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 870 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/s Bajrang Trading Company Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., Ankur Agarwal

¶5

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

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') for the Tax Period August, 2018 to March, 2019.

¶7

The petitioner was issued a notice under DRC-01A by way of intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under Section 74 (5) of the Act. The said notice was followed by show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act dated 02.05.2023. The petitioner, after seeking few adjournments, by reply dated 13.09.2023, sought certain documents, which request was repeated on 17.10.2023. The documents were made available on 19.10.2024 pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared for personal hearing on 13.11.2024 and produced documents/response, to which 22.11.2024 was fixed for hearing, on which date the petitioner did not appear. On 23.11.2024, the petitioner was issued final reminder wherein it was indicated that in the documents, which were produced on 13.11.2024 after examination, further deficiencies were found and the same were enumerated in the final notice/reminder and petitioner was called upon to produce his response by 16.12.2024 and appear for hearing on 18.12.2024.

¶8

On 16.12.2024, the petitioner filed application seeking

¶9

deferment of the personal hearing till 25.12.2024 on account of the family engagement of the accountant. It appears that on account of the fact that the adjournments in the past had been granted, the said prayer was rejected and final order dated 24.12.2024 was passed.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that from perusal of the record, it is apparent that though the petitioner was issued a fresh/additional show cause notice on 23.11.2024 and only one adjournment was sought on 16.12.2024, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the same and passing an ex parte order, which is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions wherein it has been indicated that the adjournment was sought on 16.12.2024, however, as in the past several adjournments were granted, the petitioner was not entitled to any further adjournment and, therefore, passing of the order was justified. Learned Standing Counsel based on the instructions prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

It is not in dispute that qua the initial notice which was issued to the petitioner, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner and after the documents were made available to the petitioner, he filed his response, which resulted in issuance of final reminder dated 23.11.2024.

¶14

A bare look at the said final reminder would reveal that though the same has been titled as final reminder, it has been specifically

¶15

indicated that based on the documents produced during the course of personal hearing on 13.11.2024, fresh deficiencies have been discovered and for which the petitioner was called upon to file reply by 16.12.2024 and appear for personal hearing on 18.12.2024.

¶16

Once a fresh notice pertaining to further deficiencies was issued to the petitioner and 16.12.2024 was the date fixed for filing reply and time was sought to be adjourned on account of some personal engagement of the accountant till 25.12.2024 only, we do not find any justification for the respondents to have rejected the said prayer only on account of the fact that prior to issuance of final reminder/additional notice, opportunities were granted.

¶17

The action of denial of opportunity to file reply to the final reminder containing more deficiencies and not providing opportunity of hearing in this regard to the petitioner, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, which clearly vitiates the order impugned dated 24.12.2024.

¶18

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority-respondent No. 2 to provide opportunity to file response to the final reminder/additional notice dated 23.11.2024, thereafter provide opportunity of personal hearing and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶19

The petitioner would file his reply to the final reminder/additional notice dated 23.11.2024 by 16.04.2025, whereafter Respondent No. 2 shall fix a date for personal hearing.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Sandeep/Sazia

¶21

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

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Bajrang Trading Company v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bajrang Trading Company 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Katyal Industries vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rais Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and Another

Admire Infra and Merchandise Private Lemited vs State of U.P. and Another

Dutt Metal Craft vs State of Up and Another

M/S Manoj Metal, Industries vs State of U.P. and Another

Indrajit Dutt vs State of U.P. and 2 Others