Disposed¶20

Sadar Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru. Propriietor Asif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Commercial Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Writ Tax (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) – Article 226 – GST

Allahabad HC21 May 2026WTAX/756/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte GST Section 74 assessment order (FY 2022-2023, Sitapur) quashed for denial of hearing; no notice of subsequent date; natural justice; M/s Shubham Steel Traders 2024:AHC:31108DB followed; personal hearing and reasoned order directed; WRIT TAX No. 756 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; disposed of May 21, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated May 23, 2023 quashed and set aside; authority directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. ¶20

Sadar Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 756 of 2026

¶3

Sadar Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru. Propriietor 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

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.

¶11

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated May 23, 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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:-

¶14

"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.

¶15

WTAX No. 756 of 2026

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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."

¶19

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 23, 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.

¶20

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

¶21

May 21, 2026 cks/-

¶22

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

¶23

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

Sadar Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru. Propriietor 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 Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru. Propriietor 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

Similar cases

Ankul vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Jai Narain Chourasia vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shiv Mohan @ Shiv Mohan Maurya vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Hargun Singh Sethi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko. and Others

Rambahadur vs Reserve Bank of India Thru. Regional Director Lko. and 2 Others

Asha Ram Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others