HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5127 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shikhar Kaushal along with Sri Akash Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the Revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 whereby the demand of tax Rs. 25,44,308/- has been raised by the petitioner. 3. Submission is that first show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 was wholly defective inasmuch as it fixed the date of hearing for 06.06.2024 much prior to the date of furnishing reply 24.06.2024. Thereafter, further notice was issued on 08.07.2024 wherein the date of furnishing reply and date of personal hearing were fixed for 27.07.2024. Without passing any order on that date and without issuing any further notice in that regard, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order after a month on 29.08.2024. 4. Thus, the impugned order is described to be wholly defective and deficient on procedural lapses. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the petitioner is itself to claim inasmuch as it did not participate in the proceeding and has also filed any appeal against the impugned order. At present, no indulgence may be granted for such inordinate delay and laches. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place it cannot escape notice, the impugned order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Kumar Nishad, Shikhar Kaushal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Prime Enterprises .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) 29.08.2024 has been passed without any date fixed by the adjudicating authority for that date. Second, the proceedings were defective from beginning. The first notice was also defective inasmuch as the adjudicating authority had fixed the date of hearing prior to the date of filing reply. 6. Consequently, the rules of procedure that exist to ensure fairness of the proceedings and that are enforced to ensure that the noticee is duly heard before any order carrying civil consequences arises against him, have been violated for reason of delay. We may balance that consideration by protecting the revenue to the extent required. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- within one month. Subject to such deposit being made, the adjudicating authority shall fix appropriate date and communicate the same to the petitioner through regular mode and ensure that the proceedings are concluded not later than 31.03.2026. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate and participate in the proceedings without seeking any undue adjournment. The amount so deposited shall be subject to final order to be passed by the adjudicating authority. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. October 7, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 5127 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad