High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jhansi as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.04.2023, a show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and appear before the undersigned on 10.05.2023 at 11.00 a.m. He further submits that neither any venue of hearing was shown in the notice, nor any Proper Officer was designated before whom the petitioner was to appear. He further submits that only system generated notice and therefore, the same cannot be treated as proper notice. He further submits that as per section 29 of the GST Act, a notice has to be issued by a Proper Officer and in the event of absence of such compliance, the notice itself is per se illegal and therefore, all consequential proceedings cannot stand on. He further submits that thereafter, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2023, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024. Against the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 742 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 remanding the matter to the appellate authority for passing a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 issued notice on 29.05.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit reply by 06.06.2024 and the date for personal hearing was fixed for 12.06.2024. He submits that thereafter, vide impugned order dated 12.06.2024, without considering the issue on merit and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the specific direction of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 has not been complied with while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner appeared before the Officer, but the petitioner was neither permitted to place its case, nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the submission made by the petitioner is not correct. He further submits that in pursuance of the direction of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024, notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2024. The petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing, but the petitioner did not avail the same. Relying on the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, he submits that the notice was duly served and received by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner submitted its reply on 06.06.2024, but on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024, the petitioner neither appear for personal hearing, nor any adjournment was moved or any such averment has been made in the writ petition and therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

7. The case of the petitioner is that without proper issuance of notice, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 03.06.2023. It is further submitted that cancellation of registration was bad as neither any venue was mentioned, nor any Proper Officer was designated before whom the petitioner was required to be present on the date fixed in the notice. This argument appears to be attracted at the first blink, but on perusal of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, no such ground was taken. Once the ground, which was not taken by the petitioner in its memo of appeal, the same cannot be permitted to be pressed in this writ petition for the first time. Therefore, on the said ground, the proceeding cannot be said to be illegal.

8. Secondly, against the first order of dismissal of the petitioner's appeal dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 742 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 remanding the matter to the appellate authority for passing a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, notice dated 29.05.2024 was issued and served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2024 fixing the date for submission of reply by 06.06.2024 and further hearing was fixed for 12.06.2024 at 11.00 a.m. in Commercial Tax Building, Room No. 1, Jhansi before the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), Jhansi. It has been much argued with thrust that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the order of this Court dated 17.05.2024; thereby, the petitioner was deprived of personal hearing.

9. Perusal of the order sheet sheet (Annexure No. PA - 3 to the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2) shows that there is no signature of the petitioner on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024. It is a matter of common knowledge that on every date fixed before the court below, the order sheet is signed either by the petitioner or by his counsel. The order sheet dated 06.06.2024 shows that there is a signature of the counsel of the petitioner; whereas, in the order sheet dated 12.06.2024, there is no such signature, which prima facie shows that neither the petitioner, nor his counsel appeared on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024.

10. Further, the record shows that no such pleading has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition as to what prevented the petitioner from presenting his case personally or through his counsel on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024.

11. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to in which paragraph, the argument was raised or pressed before the court below that prevented the petitioner from personal hearing before the appellate court on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024, not even a word could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.

12. In absence of any averment in the writ petition or any supporting documents with regard to the allegations made against the authorities below, the same cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, i.e., the appellate authority, shows that the notice was duly served and received by the petitioner about the date fixed, i.e., 12.06.2024, but the petitioner did not appear as there are no signatures of the petitioner or his counsel. Except the above arguments, no other argument was made by the petitioner.

13. In view of the above, the judgement cited by the petitioners in the writ petition was of no help to the petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.

15. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jhansi as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.04.2023, a show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and appear before the undersigned on 10.05.2023 at 11.00 a.m. He further submits that neither any venue of hearing was shown in the notice, nor any Proper Officer was designated before whom the petitioner was to appear. He further submits that only system generated notice and therefore, the same cannot be treated as proper notice. He further submits that as per section 29 of the GST Act, a notice has to be issued by a Proper Officer and in the event of absence of such compliance, the notice itself is per se illegal and therefore, all consequential proceedings cannot stand on. He further submits that thereafter, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2023, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024. Against the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 742 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 remanding the matter to the appellate authority for passing a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 issued notice on 29.05.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit reply by 06.06.2024 and the date for personal hearing was fixed for 12.06.2024. He submits that thereafter, vide impugned order dated 12.06.2024, without considering the issue on merit and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the specific direction of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 has not been complied with while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner appeared before the Officer, but the petitioner was neither permitted to place its case, nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the submission made by the petitioner is not correct. He further submits that in pursuance of the direction of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024, notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2024. The petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing, but the petitioner did not avail the same. Relying on the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, he submits that the notice was duly served and received by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner submitted its reply on 06.06.2024, but on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024, the petitioner neither appear for personal hearing, nor any adjournment was moved or any such averment has been made in the writ petition and therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

7. The case of the petitioner is that without proper issuance of notice, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 03.06.2023. It is further submitted that cancellation of registration was bad as neither any venue was mentioned, nor any Proper Officer was designated before whom the petitioner was required to be present on the date fixed in the notice. This argument appears to be attracted at the first blink, but on perusal of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, no such ground was taken. Once the ground, which was not taken by the petitioner in its memo of appeal, the same cannot be permitted to be pressed in this writ petition for the first time. Therefore, on the said ground, the proceeding cannot be said to be illegal.

8. Secondly, against the first order of dismissal of the petitioner's appeal dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 742 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 remanding the matter to the appellate authority for passing a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, notice dated 29.05.2024 was issued and served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2024 fixing the date for submission of reply by 06.06.2024 and further hearing was fixed for 12.06.2024 at 11.00 a.m. in Commercial Tax Building, Room No. 1, Jhansi before the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), Jhansi. It has been much argued with thrust that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the order of this Court dated 17.05.2024; thereby, the petitioner was deprived of personal hearing.

9. Perusal of the order sheet sheet (Annexure No. PA - 3 to the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2) shows that there is no signature of the petitioner on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024. It is a matter of common knowledge that on every date fixed before the court below, the order sheet is signed either by the petitioner or by his counsel. The order sheet dated 06.06.2024 shows that there is a signature of the counsel of the petitioner; whereas, in the order sheet dated 12.06.2024, there is no such signature, which prima facie shows that neither the petitioner, nor his counsel appeared on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024.

10. Further, the record shows that no such pleading has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition as to what prevented the petitioner from presenting his case personally or through his counsel on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024.

11. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to in which paragraph, the argument was raised or pressed before the court below that prevented the petitioner from personal hearing before the appellate court on the date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2024, not even a word could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.

12. In absence of any averment in the writ petition or any supporting documents with regard to the allegations made against the authorities below, the same cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the personal affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, i.e., the appellate authority, shows that the notice was duly served and received by the petitioner about the date fixed, i.e., 12.06.2024, but the petitioner did not appear as there are no signatures of the petitioner or his counsel. Except the above arguments, no other argument was made by the petitioner.

13. In view of the above, the judgement cited by the petitioners in the writ petition was of no help to the petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.

15. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Amit Mishra AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad