Allowed¶29

M/S Rishi Traders Thru.Authorized Signatory Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026WTAX/189/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Tax No. 189 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.; decided February 4, 2026; Rishi Traders vs State of U.P.; Section 75(4) of the Act; natural justice; personal hearing gap; ex parte assessment order; quashing of demand order dated 11.02.2025 and appellate order dated 04.11.2025; remand for fresh order after hearing; Mahaveer Trading Company 2024:AHC:38820-DB; M/s Shubham Steel Traders 2024:AHC:31108-DB; Videocon D2H (2016) 93 UPTC 237; Aroma Chemicals 2014:AHC:60699-DB.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 11.02.2025 and 04.11.2025 quashed; matter remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. ¶29

M/S Rishi Traders Thru.Authorized Signatory Amit Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 189 of 2026

¶3

M/S Rishi Traders Thru.Authorized Signatory Amit Kumar Gupta

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondent.

¶11

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby a demand has been raised on the petitioner. The same was challenged in an appeal before the respondent No.2 and the appeal is also dismissed by means of the order dated 04.11.2025.

¶12

Primarily submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a show cause notice dated 20.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner about which the petitioner had no knowledge. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. It is also stated that the respondent authority had not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is urged that the order impugned is in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. It is urged that the aforesaid orders are liable to be set aside whereas the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Tax No.303 of 2024 [Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax and Anr; 2024:AHC:38820-DB] has held that the date of passing of the order must be commensurate with the date of personal hearing is in gap between two, raises presumption that the authority has not considered the submissions at the time of hearing.

¶13

It is urged that this aspect has also been taken note by another Division Bench of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders vs State of U.P. vs

¶14

WTAX No. 189 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Another; 2024:AHC:31108-DB.

¶17

Learned Additional for the State respondent has refuted the aforesaid submissions, however, could not dispute the fact that the impugned was passed after almost one month of the personal hearing. The dictum of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company (supra) and M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra) clearly attracted.

¶18

This Court for the benefit extracts the relevant portion of the Division Bench decision in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra) which reads as under:

¶19

"6. Whatever be the correct fact as to the status of proceedings conducted on 06.11.2023, the order does not make any mention of the same. It is equally true that the assessing authority did not pass any order on the date fixed i.e. 06.11.2023. Instead he has chosen to pass the order on 20.11.2023, 14 days thereafter. Neither the impugned order nor the instructions of the learned Standing Counsel indicate that any date was fixed for 20.11.2023. Without fixing any further date and without giving petitioner any further opportunity the impugned order has been passed.

¶20

7. In such facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is really ex-parte. It has been passed in great haste in as much as only five days' time was allowed to the petitioner under notice dated 31.10.2023 to produce the supporting documents. Without rejecting the petitioner's request for time, the respondent authority chose not to pass the final order on that date. He also did not communicate the fresh date in the proceedings.

¶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

9. While learned Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioner has the remedy of appeal and that the petitioner is itself to blame in as much he did not comply with the notice dated 31.10.2023, we are not impressed by the objection being raised.

¶23

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.

¶24

WTAX No. 189 of 2026

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

12. In absence of any provision under the Act to allow for ex-parte proceedings to arise in such facts, we find that the breach of natural justice pressed by the petitioner is real."

¶28

Since the aforesaid dictum is applicable in the present facts and circumstances, accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 11.02.2025 & 04.11.2025 are accordingly quashed.

¶29

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed.

¶30

Matter is remanded to the assessing authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

February 4, 2026 Harshita

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

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

M/S Rishi Traders Thru.Authorized Signatory Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rishi Traders Thru.Authorized Signatory Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. 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

Similar cases

SBI General Insurance Company Limited Thru. Manager Legal vs Sonu Kumar and 2 Others

M/S a.K.Srivastava Thru. Proprietor Adesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Vap International Private Limited Thru.Manager Mr.Kuldeep Mishra vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Autar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 13 Others

Shakeel Ahamad vs Musheer Alam and 7 Others

M/s Progressive Construction Company Thru. Partner/ Authorized Signatory Badelal vs Engineer-in-Chief and H.O.D., PWD and Others