✦ Court unavailable · 31 Dec 2025

Vijay Kumar Mishra v. Rishi Raj Kapoor

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

Judgment

#1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

#2. Challenge has been raised to the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021, creating a demand of Rs.3,66,886/-. The delay has been satisfactorily explained in paragraph no.22 of the petition.

#3. Accordingly, the present petition has been entertained.

#4. On merits, it has been submitted that the opportunity of hearing was completely denied the petitioner inasmuch as only the final order/impugned order has been uploaded on the portal that was not preceded by service of notice through any of the modes prescribed under Section 169(2) of the said Act. To that effect, pleadings have been made in paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 of the petition. Copies of the screen shots have been appended to the writ petition. They clearly indicate that against the description notice words "No Records Found" are mentioned.

#5. Thus, it does appear that show cause notice was not served on the petitioner before impugned order came to be passed.

#6. In view of such fact, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. It 2 WTAX No. 4350 of 2025 does appear that opportunity of hearing has been completely denied to the petitioner in absence of service of mandatory notice. In that regard, at present, learned Standing Counsel has not received any contrary instruction.

#7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

13.02.2025 is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.37,000/- within two weeks from today. The respondent no.2 shall ensure to serve a physical copy of the original show cause notice to the petitioner on or before 17.10.2025. The petitioner undertakes to file reply thereto by

14.11.2025. Thereupon the Adjudicating Authority may fix appropriate date for personal hearing of which notice may be communicated to the petitioner through regular mode. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment, such that proceedings may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31 December 2025. October 9, 2025 Anurag/- (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

UPGST Act, 2017 — s. 73.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on eCourts case status (search case no. AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. 4350 of 2025). ← Search more judgments