Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

M/S AL-SAFA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

An order issued under Section 73 of the UP GST Act on the same day as the show‑cause notice, without affording a personal hearing, violates natural justice and must be set aside.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s Al‑Safa Industries Pvt Ltd, challenged an order dated 04‑11‑2025 issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, which was passed on the same day the show‑cause notice was issued and without granting a personal hearing. The court held that this contravened the basic requirement of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order. The court directed the authority to re‑issue the show‑cause notice along with all relevant documents and to allow the petitioner a reasonable time to respond. It further mandated that a personal hearing be fixed with at least 15 days’ notice and that any statements relied upon by the revenue be made available for cross‑examination. The proceedings were to be concluded within six months, ensuring full compliance with procedural fairness.

Issues considered

  • Whether the order passed under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 on the same day as the show‑cause notice, without a personal hearing, violates the principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • natural justice
  • GST
  • Section 73
  • show‑cause notice
  • personal hearing
  • writ petition
  • tax adjudication

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT TAX No. - 2531 of 2026

M/S Al-Safa Industries Private Limited
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :    Rishi Raj Kapoor
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 3
                HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-

respondents.


2. To the extent, it is undisputed that the impugned order dated

04.11.2025 passed under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 for the

period July 2017 to March 2018 has been passed on the date of issuance

of notice itself being inescapable conclusion arises with the first

requirement of principle of natural justice has been completely violated.

To the extent, facts are clear from a bare perusal of the record - clearly

indicating that the date fixed for furnishing reply is 04.11.2025 and no

date was provided for personal hearing. That column has been marked as

'NA'. Yet, the impugned order has been passed on that date itself.


3. The present writ petition is disposed of on the following terms :


(i) The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 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
                                                       WTAX No. 2531 of 2026
                               2


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 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 atleast 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
                                                                                             WTAX No. 2531 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    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.



                                                     (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Abhilash




Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.