Sudhir Kumar Ranjan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1224 of 2025 Sudhir Kumar Ranjan Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Priya Swapnil, Amrendra Ashok, Pushpila Bisht Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Ms. Jai Priya Swapnil learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent. The instant two petitions involve the same issue though related to two separate assessment orders and as the issue involved is common hence both the petitions are being decided by this common order. In Writ Tax no.1197 of 2025, the order impugned is dated 25.09.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 2 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025

19.04.2024 relating to financial year 2018-19 has been dismissed on the ground of delay. In the connected petition bearing no.1224 of 2025 the order in appeal is also dated 25.09.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.08.2024 relating to the financial year 2019-20 has been dismissed again on the ground of delay. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions is that the petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing in as much as the date of filing the reply and the date of personal hearing was the same. Three separate notices were issued, in which, the dates were the same, however, only in the last reminder notice dated 15.04.2024, the date of submission of reply was dated 18.04.2024 whereas the date of personal hearing was 19.04.2024. It is further urged that substantial reply of the petitioner could not be filed on account of the aforesaid discrepancy. The petitioner had further filed an appeal which has been dismissed on the grounds of delay. It is also urged that since the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings hence, only when the recovery of the outstanding tax along with interest and penalty was pressed only then the petitioner become aware and even otherwise imposition of interest and penalty has been imposed which is patently erroneous. It is further urged that in Writ Tax no.1197 of 2025, the tax liability has been indicated to be Rs.48,20,492/- whereas the interest and penalty is much more than the tax liability and a total of Rs.96,60,059/- and odd is sought to be recovered whereas the connected petition, liability Rs.36,79,312/- and similarly, the interest and the penalty component is more than the tax which is totaling Rs.68,06,726/-. It is thus, urged that if only an opportunity of hearing is provided, the petitioner would be able to put its contentions which can be examined on merits. It is also urged that where the such huge liability is sought to be pressed against the assesse then the least requirement is to afford an adequate opportunity of hearing coupled with the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay without even considering any plea raised by the petitioner and thus the right of the petitioner has been curtailed. In such circumstances, the orders are apparently voilative of Article 14, hence, deserves to be set aside. 3 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025 Sri Sanjay Sarin learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has urged that the notices which were issued to the petitioner under Section 73 of the The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act though the date of filing of reply and the date of personal hearing was same but that may not come to the aid of the petitioner since in the last notice/reminder, the date of submission of reply was dated 18.04.2024 whereas the date of personal hearing was

19.04.2025, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the aforesaid ground. Moreover, the appeal filed was time barred and the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period as mentioned in Section 107(1)(4) hence, the appeal has rightly been rejected. In view thereof, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also material on record. It is not disputed that the show cause notice dated 20.12.2023 and its reminders dated 07.02.2024 and 04.03.2024 [though as alleged by the petitioner, were never served] the date of submission of reply and hearing were the same. It is no doubt true that in the reminder dated 15.04.2024, the date of reply and the date of personal hearing were at a gap of a day, however, considering the substantial rights of the petitioner involved including the fact that the appeal has been dismissed merely on the ground of delay and it may be correct to say that the appellate authority under the Act may not have the power to condone the delay but looking into peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by setting aside the order 25.09.2025 passed in both the petitions by the appellate authority and subject to the fact that the appellant deposit a sum of Rs.75 lakhs (combined in both the appeals) with the adjudicating authority within ten days from today and upon such compliance the two appeals shall stand restored on the Board of the Appellate Authority who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide the two appeals in accordance with law and the demand order dated 19.04.2024 shall be subject to the outcome of the two appeals. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. It is also made clear that in case if the amount as mentioned above is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order and it will be open for the Authorities to recover the outstanding as per demand order in accordance with law. 4 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025 It is also clarified that the Court has not entered into the merits and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. November 3, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1224 of 2025 Sudhir Kumar Ranjan Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Priya Swapnil, Amrendra Ashok, Pushpila Bisht Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Ms. Jai Priya Swapnil learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent. The instant two petitions involve the same issue though related to two separate assessment orders and as the issue involved is common hence both the petitions are being decided by this common order. In Writ Tax no.1197 of 2025, the order impugned is dated 25.09.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 2 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025

19.04.2024 relating to financial year 2018-19 has been dismissed on the ground of delay. In the connected petition bearing no.1224 of 2025 the order in appeal is also dated 25.09.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.08.2024 relating to the financial year 2019-20 has been dismissed again on the ground of delay. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions is that the petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing in as much as the date of filing the reply and the date of personal hearing was the same. Three separate notices were issued, in which, the dates were the same, however, only in the last reminder notice dated 15.04.2024, the date of submission of reply was dated 18.04.2024 whereas the date of personal hearing was 19.04.2024. It is further urged that substantial reply of the petitioner could not be filed on account of the aforesaid discrepancy. The petitioner had further filed an appeal which has been dismissed on the grounds of delay. It is also urged that since the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings hence, only when the recovery of the outstanding tax along with interest and penalty was pressed only then the petitioner become aware and even otherwise imposition of interest and penalty has been imposed which is patently erroneous. It is further urged that in Writ Tax no.1197 of 2025, the tax liability has been indicated to be Rs.48,20,492/- whereas the interest and penalty is much more than the tax liability and a total of Rs.96,60,059/- and odd is sought to be recovered whereas the connected petition, liability Rs.36,79,312/- and similarly, the interest and the penalty component is more than the tax which is totaling Rs.68,06,726/-. It is thus, urged that if only an opportunity of hearing is provided, the petitioner would be able to put its contentions which can be examined on merits. It is also urged that where the such huge liability is sought to be pressed against the assesse then the least requirement is to afford an adequate opportunity of hearing coupled with the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay without even considering any plea raised by the petitioner and thus the right of the petitioner has been curtailed. In such circumstances, the orders are apparently voilative of Article 14, hence, deserves to be set aside. 3 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025 Sri Sanjay Sarin learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has urged that the notices which were issued to the petitioner under Section 73 of the The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act though the date of filing of reply and the date of personal hearing was same but that may not come to the aid of the petitioner since in the last notice/reminder, the date of submission of reply was dated 18.04.2024 whereas the date of personal hearing was

19.04.2025, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the aforesaid ground. Moreover, the appeal filed was time barred and the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period as mentioned in Section 107(1)(4) hence, the appeal has rightly been rejected. In view thereof, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also material on record. It is not disputed that the show cause notice dated 20.12.2023 and its reminders dated 07.02.2024 and 04.03.2024 [though as alleged by the petitioner, were never served] the date of submission of reply and hearing were the same. It is no doubt true that in the reminder dated 15.04.2024, the date of reply and the date of personal hearing were at a gap of a day, however, considering the substantial rights of the petitioner involved including the fact that the appeal has been dismissed merely on the ground of delay and it may be correct to say that the appellate authority under the Act may not have the power to condone the delay but looking into peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by setting aside the order 25.09.2025 passed in both the petitions by the appellate authority and subject to the fact that the appellant deposit a sum of Rs.75 lakhs (combined in both the appeals) with the adjudicating authority within ten days from today and upon such compliance the two appeals shall stand restored on the Board of the Appellate Authority who shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide the two appeals in accordance with law and the demand order dated 19.04.2024 shall be subject to the outcome of the two appeals. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. It is also made clear that in case if the amount as mentioned above is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order and it will be open for the Authorities to recover the outstanding as per demand order in accordance with law. 4 WTAX No. 1197 of 2025 It is also clarified that the Court has not entered into the merits and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. November 3, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench