HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5563 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Goyal, learned Senior Advocate (through Video Conference) assisted by Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Presently, challenge has been raised to the action taken by the UPGST authorities seeking to recover the dues of the company M/S M.B.S. Mobile Pvt. Ltd. from the personal asset of the petitioner. 3. Case of the revenue is that the petitioner was the Director of the above described private corporation. The corporation was assessed to tax vide Adjudication Order dated 04.01.2023 passed under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), raising total tax Rs. 54,14,29,000/-. 4. Since the corporation has failed to pay that demand, the revenue authorities invoked provisions of Section 89 of the Act. 5. Submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is, in the first place, the petitioner had served as the Director of the said private corporation till May, 2019. With effect from 13.05.2019, he ceased to be the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amarinder Singh Aulakh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Director of the said private corporation. In any case, the petitioner was a nominal Director and had no pecuniary interest in the said corporation. Referring to the order dated 04.01.2023, it has been submitted, if any show cause notice may have been issued prior to the order being passed, the same was never served on the petitioner. Even that order was not served on the petitioner. 6. Next, in any case, the action of the revenue authorities to attach the bank account of the petitioner has not been preceded by any show cause notice. Thus, opportunity to explain the correct facts and to claim inapplicability of Section 89 of the Act, has been denied. Pleadings to that effect have been made in the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit in face of the presumption arising under Section 89 of the Act, it was for the petitioner to raise such objection and to lead such evidence as if may have been advised, to establish that it was not liable under Section 89 of the Act. At the same time, it could not be denied that the action taken by the revenue authorities is ex parte at this stage. 8. In view of such facts, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. At present, the order passed under Section 74 of the Act dated 04.01.2023 alone has been served on the petitioner. Further, the order of attachment has not been served on the petitioner. The petitioner has learned about the proceedings through communication made by the bank. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.2 to forthwith issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, disclosing the intent and purpose of the revenue authorities to pursue the WTAX No. 5563 of 2025 2 recovery of tax due against M/S M.B.S. Mobile Pvt. Ltd. from the personal assets of the petitioner and notice would disclose the basis for such recovery being pursued against the petitioner. Such compliance may made by 01.11.2025. The notice may be served personally on the petitioner in addition to any other mode. 10. Upon such compliance made, the petitioner may furnish its reply on or before 07.11.2025, supported by his personal affidavit and enclosing thereto such documents as the petitioner may be advised. 11. Subject to that compliance, respondent no.2 shall proceed to deal with the objection raised and pass appropriate reasoned order on or before 17.11.2025. 12. Till 17.11.2025 though the attachment order may continue no recovery may be made from the petitioner of the dues of the company M/S M.B.S. Mobile Pvt. Ltd. 13. Petitioner undertakes to not seek any undue or long adjournment in the proceedings. Further recovery shall abide by further order to be passed by the authority. October 28, 2025 Abhilash WTAX No. 5563 of 2025 3 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad