HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5143 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Raja Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Ghaziabad Sector-13, Ghaziabad (C) Ghaziabad II, U.P. under Section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, whereby the demand of Rs.13,61,064/- has been created against the petitioner. 3. Submission is the proceedings are only defected. Referring to the show cause notice dated 20.01.2024, it has been shown that the date for filing reply was fixed for 20.02.2024 while the date of personal hearing was fixed for 10.02.2024 i.e. 10 days before reply. In any case no order came to be passed on the date fixed for personal hearing or the date for reply. In fact the impugned order was passed two months thereafter on 30.04.2024 for which there was no notice issued or served on the petitioner. As to the delay, it has been pointed out the petitioners registration was cancelled on 22.02.2023. Therefore, he was not regularly visiting the G.S.T. portal. Consequently, he was not aware about the issuance of show cause notice and the order that came to be passed against him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that the impugned order is appealable. The petitioner has lost its right of appeal owing to its own default. Therefore, no indulgence may be granted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raja Sahani, Richesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S K S Exports .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s) record, in the first place it has to be observed the proceedings initiated and concluded by the respondent are wholly defective. First, the date for hearing could not have been fixed before the date for filing of reply. Second, in absence of order passed on the date indicated in the show cause notice, proceedings could not have been fixed for another date and concluded two months thereafter on the own convenience of the adjudicating authority, without further notice of that date. 6. The issue of delay is cited has to be considered on the context that the petitioner's registration stood cancelled more than a year prior to the impugned order being passed. In view of such facts, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending or call for counter affidavit at this stage. The impugned order creates civil liabilities against the petitioner. His right of personal hearing has been infringed for no fault of his. For reason of some delay we provide the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of deposit of Rs.1,25,000/- within one month. 7. Present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Petitioner shall file reply within a month of deposit being made. (ii) Thereupon the respondent No. 2 shall fix appropriate date for hearing and communicate the same to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law. (iii) Petitioner undertakes to cooperate and participate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment. 8. It is expected that the proceedings thus remitted would be concluded within one month from reply being filed by the petitioner. October 7, 2025 Mohit WTAX No. 5143 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad