Kailash Pati Chaurasia v. Rishi Raj Kapoor
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- UPGST Act, 2017 s. 73
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 11.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. 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 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 2 WTAX No. 4055 of 2025 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 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
11.02.2025 is set aside. 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 6, 2025 Abhilash (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 31 Dec 2025. The bench was SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, INDRAJEET SHUKLA.
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.