M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 227 of 2026

¶3

M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar 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 by the respondent.

¶11

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector-3 Barabanki whereby demand of huge tax has been imposed on the petitioner. The same was challenged in an appeal before the respondent no.3 and the appeal is also dismissed by means of the order dated 10.11.2025.

¶12

Primarily submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a show cause notice dated 27.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner. It is also stated that a reminder issued on 16.01.2025. The petitioner came to know about the notice and reminder when Ameen of the GST Department came to his business place and demanded about the recovery. It is urged that the order impugned is in violation of Section 75(4) (5) of the Act. It is also urged that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid orders are liable to be set aside since the respondent no.3 has dismissed the appeal only on the sole ground of laches 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 Another; 2024:AHC:31108-DB.

¶14

Learned Additional for the State respondent has refuted the aforesaid submissions, however, could not dispute the fact and the dictum of this Court in Mahaveer

¶15

WTAX No. 227 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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

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.

¶25

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."

¶26

Since the aforesaid dictum is applicable in the present facts and circumstances,

¶27

WTAX No. 227 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 18.02.2025 & 10.11.2025 are accordingly quashed.

¶30

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed.

¶31

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

¶32

February 11, 2026 Harshita

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶34

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

M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 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

Singhan and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Sumirta vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur and Others

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhay and 5 Others vs Ram Jiyawan and Others

Executive Engineer Nirman KHAND-1,PUBLIC Works Deptt. Distt.Gonda vs Presiding Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner,Devipatan Division Distt. Gonda and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Agarwal vs Ram Baran (dead) through his legal heir Thakur Prasad Yadav and Ors.

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Signatory Jeetendra Bahadur Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another