HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2841 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the orders dated 23.9.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by respondent no. 3. 3. In pursuance of earlier order, instructions have come, which are taken on record. 4. On the strength of instructions, learned ACSC submits that the petitioner has deposited 20 % of the impugned tax liablity before the respondent authority on 3.9.2025 and thereafter again deposited 10 % of the impugned tax liablity, which has not been disputed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the trading of marble stones. He submits that a show cause notice dated 7.4.2021 was issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of GST Act and reminders were also issued but since the notices and reminders were not properly communicated to the petitioner, as the same was uploaded in wrong tab, then the petitioner could not submit reply of the same, however without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner the ex -parte impugned order dated 28.12.2021 has been passed. He submits that when the petitioner came to know about the order, when the recovery was pressed, in the year 2022, he preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2 but the same has illegally been dismissed on the ground of latches without taking into consideration of the notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 2.11.2023 adopted by respondent no. 1 vide notification dated 29.11.2023. 6. He submits that looking to the said circular, the appeal ought to have been dismissed on merit instead of dismissing the same the ground of latches. He submits that the petitioner has already deposited 30 % of the disputed tax amount but instead of deciding the appeal on merit, the same has been dismissed on the ground of latches. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Royal Rajasthan Marble .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) He submits that specific pleading has been made in the writ petition which has not been denied by the State in its counter affidavit. 7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order but could not dispute the legal proposition enumerated in the aforesaid notification. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of latches without adjudicating the case on merit in view of the notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax dated 2.11.2023 adopted by respondent no. 1 vide notification dated 29.11.2023. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries, 2002(143) ELT19 (SC) and Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur vs M/S.Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 231 ELT 22 (S.C.), has held that notification and circulars are binding upon the authorities. 11 . In view of above, the matter requires re-consideration by the appellate authority. 12. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority / respondent no. 2, who shall decide the case, afresh on merit, by reasoned and speaking order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order. (Piyush Agrawal,J.) September 19, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- WTAX No. 2841 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad