M/S KAPOOR TRADERS THRU.PROPRIETOR SHRI RAJESH KAPOOR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. COMMISSIONER STATE TAX GOVT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
/1005/2025 · 2025-09-23
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 167155 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 167155 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1005 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act as well as the order dated 18.09.2025 whereby, the appeal was dismissed as being beyond limitation.
3. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as in the notice NA was mentioned in front of the tab of the personal hearing.
4. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions states that in the notice, no date for hearing was fixed.
5. Finding the order to be violative of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and the issue being covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mahaveer Trading Company vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another: Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, decided on 04.03.2024, the impugned
order dated 23.04.2024 and the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 are quashed.
6. The writ petition is allowed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Kapoor Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava M/S Kapoor Traders Thru.Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kapoor And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner State Tax Govt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
7. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh
order, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
8. As both the orders impugned, which had stopped operation of the bank accounts, have been quashed, the respondent-Bank is directed to allow the petitioner to operate the accounts.
9. This order has been passed in the presence of Sri Kumar Jaikrit, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent-Bank. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. September 23, 2025 akverma WTAX No. 1005 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench