Disposed¶7

Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd. Mahmoodabad Sitapur Thru. Proprietou Asif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Commercial Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2026WTAX/753/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST; Section 74 GST Act; ex parte assessment order; no notice of subsequent hearing date; personal hearing; reasoned order; Article 226 writ; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT TAX 753 of 2026; Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd.; Sitapur; FY 2022-2023; M/s Shubham Steel Traders 2024:AHC:31108DB (coordinate Bench, followed); order quashed and set aside; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated May 24, 2023 quashed and set aside; authority concerned directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. ¶7

Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd. Mahmoodabad… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated May 24, 2023 passed ex parte under Section 74 of the GST Act for FY 2022-2023 — not passed on the date fixed for hearing and with no notice for any subsequent date — should be quashed, with a fresh opportunity of personal hearing and a reasoned order.

¶4

Court's answer

Since the facts of the present case are similar to those in M/s Shubham Steel Traders (supra), the Court saw no reason to take a different view: the impugned order dated May 24, 2023 is quashed and set aside, with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — WRIT TAX No. 753 of 2026 (decided May 27, 2026): Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd., Mahmoodabad, Sitapur, against an order dated May 24, 2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Sitapur Circle, Range-4, District Sitapur, for FY 2022-2023. The order had been passed ex parte: it was not passed on the date fixed for hearing, and no notice was given for any subsequent date. Finding the facts similar to the coordinate Bench decision in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P., Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:31108DB, the Court took the same view, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and directed the authority to grant the petitioner a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law; the writ petition was disposed of. The natural-justice reasoning on failure to communicate the adjourned hearing date appears in the quoted extract of the cited decision, not as independent analysis by this Court.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 753 of 2026

¶3

Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd. Mahmoodabad Sitapur Thru. Proprietou Asif Ali

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Commercial Tax Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmana Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶12

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated May 24, 2023 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Sitapur Circle, Range-4, District Sitapur, for the financial year 2022-2023.

¶13

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.

¶14

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:31108DB. The relevant extract of the said judgement is provided below:-

¶15

"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

¶16

WTAX No. 753 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Citation No.-2014:AHC:60699-DB, it has been submitted, such an order may not stand.

¶19

Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 19.04.2025 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 19.04.2025.

¶20

By not passing the order on 19.04.2025 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the exparte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct."

¶21

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 May 24, 2023 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.

¶22

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

¶23

May 27, 2026 cks/-

¶24

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd. Mahmoodabad Sitapur Thru. Proprietou Asif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Commercial Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadar Handloom Co-Operative Society Ltd. Mahmoodabad Sitapur Thru. Proprietou Asif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Commercial 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hotel Vivid a Unit of Maa Gayatri Associates Thru. Manager Ranjan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Girjesh Construction Thru. Partner Sri Damodar Bajpai vs Collector / District Magistrate Distt. Shrawasti and Another

Ram Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Aanand Kumar Modanwal vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 5 Others

M/S Sainik Travel Services Thru.Sole Proprietor Anand Prakash Shukla vs State Tax Officer Lucknow and Another

Trilochan Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Vibhag Lko. and Another