Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94052-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2672 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Uddesh Kishan Sewa Kendra Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Dheeraj Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act'), whereby a demand has been raised against the petitioner for the tax period 2019-20. 2. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 61 of the Act indicating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny. No response to the same was filed. A notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued, inter alia, indicating the fact of non filing of response and calling upon the petitioner to show cause on four aspects. When no reply was filed, a reminder was issued to the petitioner, however, the same was also not responded, which resulted in passing of the order dated 28.08.2024. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed is in violation of the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act inasmuch as no reasons have been recorded by the adjudicating authority for passing the order impugned and only the indications made in the show-cause notice have been reiterated without any determination. Reliance has been placed on M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. : Writ Tax No.606 of 2025, decided on 11.03.2025. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the judgment in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the authority has applied its mind to the show-cause notice and the fact that the petitioner has not filed any response and, thereafter, has passed a speaking order and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that despite issuance of notices under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act, no response was filed and, thereafter, even when the reminder was issued, the petitioner chose not to appear and, therefore, the authority was forced to pass an ex-parte order. 7. A perusal of the order impugned (Annexure-5) reveals that the authority has noticed the grounds on which the notice was issued, the fact that the response has not been filed and, thereafter, has specifically indicated its determination on all the four aspects on which the show-cause notice was issued. The judgment in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case as that was a case of 'copy & paste', i.e, the show-cause notice only was reproduced in the final order, which is not the situation here. 8. In a case where despite show-cause notice/reminder, response has not been filed, it is not expected of the authority to assume defense on behalf of the assessee and then pass an order. The authority can only notice the fact of non filing of response and, thereafter indicate its determination on the issues raised in the show-cause notice and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised pertaining to the order impugned being non speaking has no substance. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad