Allahabad High Court
WTAX/1452/2025 of M/S TRISHA TRADERS THRU. PROPRIETOR AMIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. TAX AND REGISTRATION LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 10 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1452 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Challenge has been raised to the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT TAX No. - 1452 of 2025
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 16.02.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. G.S.T Act, 2017 for the tax period 2019-20.
3. It has been submitted, the essential requirements of rules of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. The date fixed for personal hearing was the same as the date fixed for filing of reply. In that regard reliance has been placed on Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, Mahaveer Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and Another.
4. The above facts are not in dispute. Therefore, no useful purpose may be served either in keeping the present petition or calling for a counter affidavit or relegating the petitioner to the forum of appeal. The rules of natural justice are far too well established to allow any exception to be made in that regard. Unless, the petitioner had been put to notice with respect to the demand proposed to be created by the adjudication order and unless he had been given adequate opportunity to present his case, the order that may arise may remain procedurally defective.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Utkarsh Misra, Abhishek Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Trisha Traders Thru. Proprietor Amit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
directions:-
(i) The order dated 16.02.2022 is set aside.
(ii) The petitioner may treat the impugned order as the final notice.
(iii) It may submit its further reply thereto within a period of three weeks. In that regard, it may remain open to the petitioner to raise all jurisdictional and merit issues. Subject to such compliance made, the adjudicating authority may fix a date for personal hearing with at least 15 days notice to allow the petitioner to be prepared on all counts. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the adjudicating authority on the dates that may be fixed. Accordingly, appropriate reasoned order may be passed thereafter. December 10, 2025 Shravan WTAX No. 1452 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench