Allahabad High Court
UMED SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The impugned order dated 22 December 2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to ensure a fair hearing and disclosure of documents.
Summary
The petitioner, Umed Singh, challenged the tax adjudicating authority's order dated 22 December 2025 on grounds of denial of a hearing, lack of reasons for decisions, and non‑disclosure of RUDs before the conclusion of proceedings. The Court noted that similar factual circumstances existed in the earlier case of M/S Shankar Trading Company v. Union of India, where the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted with detailed procedural directions. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the present petition should be disposed of on the same terms, directing the adjudicating authority to issue a fresh show‑cause notice, provide copies of RUDs and non‑RUDs, allow the petitioner to request additional documents, and ensure opportunities for cross‑examination within stipulated time‑frames. The Court also emphasized that any refusal to provide documents or allow cross‑examination must be accompanied by adequate reasons. Consequently, the order dated 22 December 2025 was set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh proceedings as per the earlier order.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing and reasons for the adjudicating authority's decision.
- Whether the failure to provide RUDs and non‑RUDs before the conclusion of proceedings violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the credibility of material relied upon by the revenue can be challenged without providing an opportunity for cross‑examination.
Subjects
- tax law
- writ petition
- natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- RUD
- adjudicating authority
- cross‑examination
- remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 1720 of 2026
Umed Singh
.....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
document including copies of non-RUDs, within a further period
WTAX No. 1720 of 2026
2
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
stressed that the RUDs were not made available to the petitioner before the
WTAX No. 1720 of 2026
3
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.
May 5, 2026
#Vikram/-
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…