Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41055-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1149 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ashish Traders Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Narain Shukla,Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Parth Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the show-cause notice dated 31st January, 2024 and also the demand order dated 27th April, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-26, Kanpur, U.P. (respondent no.2) under Section 73 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act (for short "SGST Act"). 3. To challenge the impugned order of demand, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons have been assigned and secondly none of the issue relating to the determination of quantum of tax has been adjudicated. 4. To bolster the first submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order of the Co- ordinate Bench dated 12th March, 2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 349 of 2024 (Aman Traders Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Another), wherein following observations are made in paragraph no.5: "5. In similar circumstances, Writ Tax No.303 of 2024, (Mahaveer Trading Company versus Deputy Commissioner State Tax and Another) has been allowed. That order dated 04.03.2024 reads as below:- "5. It is basic to procedural law under taxing statutes that opportunity of personal hearing must be provided to an assessee before any assessment/adjudication order is passed against him. Thus, we find it strange and wholly unacceptable merely because the substantive law has changed, the revenue authorities have changed their approach and are failing to observe that mandatory requirement of procedural law. They have thus denied opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Section 75(4) of the Act reads as below: "An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person." 7. Perusal of the impugned order reveals, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority on three dates. With respect to those dates, the impugned order reads as below: (i) " जजरर ननटटस कक अननपजलन मम टदनजनक 23/9/2022 कन शर एफ०सर० चचहजन (रजजज चचहजन) अधधवकज फमर उपसससत हहए। ननटटस कज सपषरकरण पसतनत टकयज गयज जन टनमन हह....." (ii) " जजरर ननटटस कक अननपजलन मम टदनजनक 07/10/2022 कन पननन शर एफ०सर० चचहजन ( रजजज चचहजन) अधधवकज फमर उपसससत हहए। ननटटस कज सपषरकरण पसतनत टकयज गयज जन टनमन हह...." (iii) " जजरर ननटटस कक अननपजलन मम टदनजनक 27/9/2022 कन पननन शर एफ०सर० चचहजन ( रजजज चचहजन) अधधवकज फमर उपसससत हहए। ननटटस कज सपषरकरण पसतनत टकयज गयज जन टनमन हह...." 8. Thus, it is established on record that on all three dates, the petitioner had been called to file its reply on the points specified in the respective show-cause notice issued. The petitioner submitted its reply on each occasion. Those replies have been extracted in the impugned order. After recording the reply submitted on 27.10.2022, the adjudicating authority has chosen to deal with the merits of the replies submitted and passed a merit order. 9. It transpires from the record, neither the adjudicating authority issued any further notice to the petitioner to show cause or to participate in the oral hearing, nor he granted any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 10. On query made, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits, in light of similar occurrences, noticed in other litigation, he had apprised the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. In turn, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, has issued Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024. The same has been addressed to all Additional Commissioner to be communicated to all field formations for necessary compliance. A copy of the same has been made available to this Court. It reads as below: "1. The column in which date of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning any date. 2. The column in which time of personal hearing has to be mentioned, only N.A. is mentioned without mentioning time of hearing. 3. In some cases, the date of personal hearing is prior to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted this is non-est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing. 4. In some cases, the date of personal hearing is on the same date to which reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be submitted-this is non- est and this practice has to be discontinued. The date of reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be definitely prior to the date of personal hearing. 5. In all cases observed, the date of passing order either u/s 73(9)/74(9) etc. of the Act is not commensurate to the date of personal hearing. It is trite law that the date of the order has to be passed on the date of personal hearing. For eg.,the date of furnishing reply to SCN is 15.11.2023 and date of personal hearing is 17.11.2023, then the date of order has to be 17.11.2023" 11. In view of the facts noted above, before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding, personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right, occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority, (in those facts), to proceed to deal with the case on merits, ex-parte. Also, another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing, the noticee fails to avail the same. Leaving such situations apart, we cannot allow a practice to arise or exist where opportunity of personal hearing may be denied to a person facing adjudication proceedings. 12. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied, it would be of no real use. In fact, it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here, it may be noted, the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings. " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the show-cause notice dated 31st January, 2024 the petitioner was given opportunity to submit reply by 15th February, 2024 and the date of personal hearing was also fixed on the same date i.e. 15th February, 2024 at 11:51 a.m. meaning thereby that there was no proper opportunity given to the petitioner to have his/her say in the matter. As such, the impugned order has denied reasonable opportunity of contest in the matter. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents does not dispute the fact that the impugned order of demand passed by respondent no. 2 contains no reason and the allegation with regard to denial of proper opportunity is also not effectively disputed. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reasons are the sole of any valid adjudication. No reasons are disclosed in the order. we also find merit in the grievance regarding denial of proper opportunity. As such, we allow the present writ petition. The impugned order of demand dated 24th April, 2024 is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the second respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law. (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.) Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Sushil/- Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad