Allowed¶40

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026WTAX/340/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Tax No. 340 of 2026, M/S R. B. Industries (partner Sumit Goel) v. State of U.P.; challenge to Section 73 U.P. GST Act order dated 22.10.2024 passed without personal hearing and to appellate order dated 30.08.2025 dismissing appeal as time-barred; Mahaveer Trading Company, 2024:AHC:38820-DB followed; both orders quashed; remand for fresh order after hearing; single judge Jaspreet Singh; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; decided 26.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the orders dated 22.10.2024 and 30.08.2025, with remand to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ¶40

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 340 of 2026

¶3

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Singh, Deepak Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Sachin Kumar, Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the GST Act') as well as the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted while passing the order under Section 73 of the GST Act. It has also been contended that date of reminder and the date of filing reply are same.

¶12

It has also pointed out that in absence of any opportunity the order impugned cannot be sustained and this issue was dealt by 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].

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, states that the date of reminder and the date of filing reply are same"

¶14

Before adverting to the aforesaid submissions it will be appropriate to

¶15

WTAX No. 340 of 2026

¶16

¶17

notice the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahaveer Trading Company (supra) wherein in paras-5 to 11 it was held that under:

¶18

"5. It is basic to procedural law under taxing statutes that opportunity of personal hearing must be provided to an assessee before any assessment/adjudication order is passed against him. Thus, we find it strange and wholly unacceptable merely because the substantive law has changed, the revenue authorities have changed their approach and are failing to observe that mandatory requirement of procedural law. They have thus denied opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

¶19

Section 75(4) of the Act reads as below:

¶20

"An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person."

¶21

Perusal of the impugned order reveals, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority on three dates. With respect to those dates, the impugned order reads as below:

¶22

(i) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 23/9/2022 को श्री एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधवक्ता फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न

¶23

(ii) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 07/10/2022 को पुनः श्री एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधवक्ता फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न है...

¶24

(iii) "जारी नोिटस के अनुपालन में िदनांक 27/10/2022 को पुनः श्री एफ०सी० चौहान (राजू चौहान) अिधवक्ता फमर् उपिस्थत हुए। नोिटस का स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत िकया गया जो िनम्न है.........

¶25

Thus, it is established on record that on all three dates, the petitioner had been called to file its reply on the points specified in the respective show-cause notice issued. The petitioner submitted its reply on each

¶26

WTAX No. 340 of 2026

¶27

¶28

occasion. Those replies have been extracted in the impugned order. After recording the reply submitted on 27.10.2022, the adjudicating authority has chosen to deal with the merits of the replies submitted and passed a merit order.

¶29

It transpires from the record, neither the adjudicating authority issued any further notice to the petitioner to show cause or to participate in the oral hearing, nor he granted any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶30

On query made, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits, in light of similar occurrences, noticed in other litigation, he had apprised the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. In turn, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, has issued Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024. The same has been addressed to all Additional Commissioner to be communicated to all field formations for necessary compliance. A copy of the same has been made available to this Court. It reads as below:

¶31

"1. The column in which date of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning any date.

¶32

The column in which time of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning time of hearing.

¶33

In some cases, the date of personal hearing is prior to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing.

¶34

In some cases, the date of personal hearing is on the same date to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted-this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing.

¶35

WTAX No. 340 of 2026

¶36

¶37

In all cases observed, the date of passing order either u/s 73(9)/74(9) etc. of the Act is not commensurate to the date of personal hearing. It is trite law that the date of the order has to be passed on the date of personal hearing. For eg., the date of furnishing reply to SCN is 15.11.2023 and date of personal hearing is 17.11.2023, then the date of order has to be 17.11.2023"

¶38

In view of the facts noted above, before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding, personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right, occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority, (in those facts), to proceed to deal with the case on merits, ex-parte. Also, another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing, the noticee fails to avail the same. Leaving such situations apart, we cannot allow a practice to arise or exist where opportunity of personal hearing may be denied to a person facing adjudication proceedings. "

¶39

Since the aforesaid dictum is applicable in the present facts and circumstances, accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders dated 22.10.2024 & 30.08.2025 are accordingly quashed.

¶40

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed .

¶41

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

¶42

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶43

February 26, 2026

¶44

Asheesh

¶45

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

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax 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

Ram Devi and 2 Others vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation / D.M., Barabanki and Others

Rudra Kumar vs Smt. Chitrarekha

Ram Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Chandresh and 3 Others vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Office, Lucknow and 2 Others

Ram Prakash Yadav and 4 Others vs Shri Ram Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others