M/S New Manoj Medical Store vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36347-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 979 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/S New Manoj Medical Store Respondent :- State Of U.P and 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

This petition is directed against order dated 11.04.2024 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed by the State Tax Officer, Bharthana, Etawah under Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 ('the Act') for the tax period April, 2018 - March, 2019.

¶7

Submission has been made that petitioner was issued notice under Section 73 of the Act on 24.12.2023, which was uploaded on the Additional Tab of the portal, the petitioner on account of such uploading was not aware of the said notice and as such, could not file response to the same. Whereafter, show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued on 14.02.2024, which again was uploaded on the Additional Tab and reply was required to be filed on 28.02.2024. However, it was indicated that no personal hearing would be provided.

¶8

Submission has been made that on account of uploading at an incorrect Tab on the portal, the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings, which resulted in passing of the order dated 11.04.2024 under Section 73(9) of the Act whereby huge demand has been created against the petitioner.

¶9

It is further submitted that the order passed under Section 73(9) of the Act, is contrary to the requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act wherein it is required of the adjudicating officer to set out

¶10

relevant facts and basis of his decision whereas, the order impugned has been passed without indicating any reason whatsoever and on that count also the order impugned is bad and deserves to be set aside.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that plea raised regarding uploading of the notices under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act in the wrong Tab apparently now has no basis as on 14.02.2024 a reminder was issued to the petitioner qua which, specific indications in the portal have been made since 16.01.2024 and therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. The petitioner has chosen not to respond to the notices and therefore, passing of the order impugned does not call for any interference.

¶12

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

¶13

The plea raised pertaining to purported wrong uploading of the notices, apparently loses significance once post 16.01.2024 the reminder has been issued to the petitioner. However, a bare look at the order impugned dated 11.04.2024 reveals that the same only makes reference to issuance of two notices, the fact that they have not been responded and a demand has been raised.

¶14

The manner of passing of order dated 11.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis of the decision are totally missing from the order dated 11.04.2024. Even if no response was filed to the notices under Section 61 and 73 of the Act, it was incumbent on the respondent no. 2 to pass an order in compliance of provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act as a final

¶15

order should be self contained and merely making reference to the previous notice while passing the said order does not suffice for making it a self contained order.

¶16

Consequently, the petition is allowed . The order dated 11.04.2024 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 to provide an opportunity of filing response to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner, which response shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter, after providing opportunity of hearing, a fresh order in accordance with law be passed.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 RK/SL

¶18

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

¶19

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

M/S New Manoj Medical Store v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S New Manoj Medical Store v. State of U.P 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

Dr. Sachin Anand vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sumit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shree Ram Enterprises vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Jai Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Huma Scrap Traders vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Kaushal Kishore Lal Gautam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others