Allowed

M/S New Balaji Travels Thru. Proprietor Komal Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2026WTAX/278/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST adjudication order was issued with 'NA' recorded against the personal hearing column, denying Section 75(4) hearing rights. The Court held natural justice requires independent written reply and oral hearing opportunities, set aside the order, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after filing of final reply.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.02.2025 set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh reasoned order after petitioner files final reply within two weeks and appears on date fixed by assessing author

M/S New Balaji Travels Thru. Proprietor Komal Awasthi… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 278 of 2026

¶3

M/S New Balaji Travels Thru. Proprietor Komal Awasthi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manas Shukla, Anurag Srivastava, Karan Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 3

¶6

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶7

Having heard Shri Manas Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the revenue, we find that as per Section 75 (4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') opportunity of personal hearing has to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against any person, here a registered person/petitioner.

¶8

Undeniably, the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the Act, but the authority did not propose to grant personal hearing as the abbreviation "NA" was specified against the column "date of personal hearing". In that, against the columns to specify the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and venue for personal hearing, the abbreviation "NA" i.e. 'Not Applicable' was recorded.

¶9

In view of the above position admitted on the record, the only conclusion possible to be drawn is that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing.

¶10

Thus, upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the

¶11

WTAX No. 278 of 2026

¶12

¶13

Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against the petitioner, may be dropped.

¶14

In other words, the rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.

¶15

On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner further states that detailed reply was not required. The discrepancies in the returns as noticed by the adjudicating authority would have been clarified if opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.

¶16

In view of the above noted facts and reasons, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order. In that regard the petitioner may file its final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from date. Thereafter, the petitioner may appear before the assessing authority on the date fixed by the assessing authority, whereafter the assessing authority may pass appropriate reasoned order.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶19

February 19, 2026 akhilesh/-

¶20

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶21

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

M/S New Balaji Travels Thru. Proprietor Komal Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S New Balaji Travels Thru. Proprietor Komal Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Guddi Rani vs Chief General Manager Indian Bank Lko. and Another

Mishila Alias Misla Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Kallu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Ajay Kumar Pandey Thru.Proprietor Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Sectt. Lko and Another

Dr.Shivi Abhishek Jaiswal vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

M/S Ss-Mart Retail LLP GSTIN-09ADSFS6446H1ZC Thru. Authorized Representative Anuruddha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and Another