HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5351 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rastogi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2024 passed under Section 122 of the UPGST Act passed by respondent no.2 imposing penalty Rs. 77 Lakhs for the FY 2023-24 No other prayer has been pressed and no other objection has been raised. 3. Submission is, no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order being passed and in any case, no date of filing of reply or personal hearing was communicated to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. Also, the date of service of the adjudication order has been doubted. Pleadings to that effect exist. 4. In many similar matters arising from same/similar mistakes committed by the Adjudicating Authorities, we have been setting aside such orders, conditionally. Hundreds, if not thousands of petitions have arisen, on same or similar grounds, clearly indicating to the Court, widespread difficulties being faced by numerous registered persons. 5. Primarily, it is being noted, show cause notices and adjudication orders are being served only through online mode. In that, many times alerts are not being sent to the noticees and in any case the notices and orders are often not readily visible on the GSTN Portal. Further, it has been noted, besides Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Rastogi, Vishakha Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Tik Tik Payment Solution Company .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) rigid/fixed period of limitation with limited power to condone the delay, the Appeal Authorities do not have the power to set aside/remand the proceedings, to the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, many times the right of appeal is lost to the aggrieved assessees, for reason of late service of Adjudication Order. Even, if the Appeal Authorities were to pass an order on merits, it would still take away one opportunity of hearing that is otherwise available to the noticee, to represent its case, under the scheme of the Act. 6. While there may be some merit in the objection being raised by the petitioner, that facts are otherwise, in the first place a coordinate bench in Mahaveer Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax And Another, Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:38820-DB, a coordinate bench took note of similar and other violations of rules of natural justice, by Adjudicating Authorities and thus set aside the Adjudication Order. 7. Again in another order passed by a coordinate bench in M/S Shubham Steel Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.-2024: AHC:31108-DB, it has been observed as below: "10. Rules of natural justice ensure fairness in proceedings. Once the authority had fixed the matter for hearing on 06.11.2023 it was incumbent on that authority either to pass the order or to fix another date and communicate the same to the petitioner. Communication of the other date was necessary as according to the assessing authority the petitioner failed to appear before it on the date fixed on 06.11.2023. 11. By not passing the order on 06.11.2023 and not communicating the next date fixed in the proceedings, the assessing authority forced the ex-parte nature of the order on the petitioner, by its own conduct." 8. In view of our consistent view in similar matters, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit, at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the penalty imposed within a period of one month from today, with the following directions: (i) Subject to the above deposit being made by the petitioner, the WTAX No. 5351 of 2025 2 Adjudicating Authority shall make available to the petitioner copy of the show cause notice together with any additional/supplementary notice etc issued in these proceedings together with copies of Relied Upon Documents ('RUDs' in short) within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner shall file reply, if any, within a further period of four weeks therefrom. (iii) Thereupon the respondent No. 2 shall fix appropriate date for hearing and communicate the same to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law with at least two weeks' advance notice. (iv) Petitioner undertakes to cooperate and participate in the proceedings and not seek any undue or long adjournment. 10. It is expected that the proceedings thus remitted would be concluded within six months from the date the petitioner makes first compliance under this order and deposits the amount specified above. 11. The amount so deposited shall remain subject to the final decision to be taken by respondent No. 2. October 13, 2025 Faraz WTAX No. 5351 of 2025 3 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad