PHOOL CHANDRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

                                        .

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT TAX No. - 1713 of 2026

Phool Chandra
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

Union Of India And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Ami Tandon
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Saumitra
                                     Singh

.




Court No. - 3

                HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan along with Sri Ami Tandon, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi and Sri Sanjai Kumar Om,
learned counsel for the revenue.

2. By a separate order passed in M/S Shankar Trading Company
Vs. Union Of India And 3 Others, 2026:AHC:102564-DB, we have
disposed of the writ petition filed by the co-noticees on the following
terms:-

     "(i) The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is set aside and the
     matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh
     order.

     (ii) For that purpose, the Adjudicating Authority may issue to the
     petitioner, a fresh copy of the original Show-Cause notice
     together with copies of RUDs and a list of non-RUDs. That
     compliance may be made within a period of two weeks from
     today.

     (iii) Upon receipt of such communication, the petitioner may
     apply to the Adjudicating Authority to be supplied any other
                                                        WTAX No. 1713 of 2026
                                 2


     document including copies of non-RUDs, within a further period
     of one week therefrom.

     (iv) Subject to such compliance, the application moved by the
     petitioner may be considered by the Adjudicating Authority
     within a further period of one week. Copies of all other
     documents to be supplied to the petitioner may be made available
     within that time. If copy of any document or non-RUD, is to be
     declined, adequate reasons may be communicated to the
     petitioner, within that time.

     (v) Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority may fix appropriate
     date in the proceeding with at least 15 days advance notice. The
     petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and not
     seek any undue or long adjournment.

     (vi) At that stage, if the revenue seeks to rely on statement of
     any person, recorded during investigation etc., the same would
     necessarily be made available to the petitioner on the date
     fixed in the proceedings. On that date itself, the petitioner may
     apply for opportunity to cross-examine any witness being
     relied by the revenue.

     (vii) Wherever the revenue seeks to rely on adverse statement
     made against the petitioner, normally opportunity of cross-
     examination, if prayed for, may be allowed to the petitioner. If
     such opportunity is to be declined, adequate reasons for the
     same may be communicated to the petitioner within a week of
     its application.

     (viii) Accordingly, the proceedings may continue such that the
     same may be concluded within a period of six months from
     today, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to
     the petitioner."

3. Though, ground of arrest is not being pressed in the present case, insofar
as denial of opportunity of hearing and recording of reasons are concerned,
similar grounds have been pressed in the present case. Further, it has been
                                                                                              WTAX No. 1713 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    stressed that the RUDs were not made available to the petitioner before the
                                    adjudicating proceedings were concluded. Also other grounds have been
                                    pressed to doubt the credibility of the material relied by the revenue.

                                    4. In view of the similar facts, present petition is also disposed of on the
                                    same terms.



                                                     (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    #Vikram/-




Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad