Disposed¶5

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and Another

GST – Assessment under Section 73 – Ex parte order dated 19.09.2022 for FY 2017-18

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2026WTAX/436/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Shekhar B. Saraf & Manjive Shukla, JJ.), WRIT TAX No. 436 of 2026, decided March 20, 2026 – Bachhuka Traders v. State of U.P.: ex parte Section 73 GST Act assessment order dated 19.09.2022 (FY 2017-18) quashed for denial of natural justice; authority directed to grant personal hearing and pass reasoned order; follows M/s Shubham Steel Traders, 2024:AHC:31108-DB.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.09.2022 quashed and set aside; authority directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. ¶5

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 436 of 2026

¶3

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

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

¶9

Heard Shri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶10

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.09.2022 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-1, Ayodhya (A), Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh for the financial year 2017-18.

¶11

Upon a perusal of the documents, it appears that the order was passed ex parte and was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and for subsequent date no notice was given to the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:31108-DB . The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:-

¶13

"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.

¶14

WTAX No. 436 of 2026

¶15

¶16

10. Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 21.04.2025 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 21.04.2025.

¶17

11. By not passing the order on 21.04.2025 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."

¶18

In light of the same, as the facts of the present case are similar to one in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra) , we see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

March 20, 2026 akhilesh/-

¶21

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

¶22

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

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Sami vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Krishna Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

M/S Jugal Kishore Commercial Thru. Partner Mr. Sandeep Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Hari Shankar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Lko. and 3 Others

Palacio Imperial White Buyers Association Thru. Secy. Manoj Kumar Bhagat vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Corporate Affairs New Delhi and 4 Others

Manish Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others